[Distutils] Current status of PEP 439 (pip boostrapping)

[Brett Cannon]

On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Paul Moore <p.f.moore at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 13 July 2013 14:31, Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> wrote:
>
>> +1 on the inversion. I don't know what that will do to pip, it makes
>> sense to have the installer self-contained and the packaging/building
>> libraries be something that you grab using the installer. Having to grab
>> the packaging infrastructure to get an installer is the more painful route.
>
>
> TBH, I don't understand what "the inversion" implies. If it means pip
> taking all of the distlib/setuptools code that it currently uses, and
> making it part of pip and maintained within pip (essentially as a fork
> while the "inversion" is going on) then I'm not keen on that. Personally, I
> don't want to have to maintain that code myself - I guess if Vinay and
> Jason were pip maintainers and looked after that code, then that's an
> option. If it means pip vendoring distlib and setuptools, then OK (we do
> that for distlib already)
>

The point is you shouldn't have to grab a packaging tool just to install
stuff if you never need the packaging tool. Since pip is supposed to be
*the* first thing you install for Python you don't want that to have its
own dependencies, muddying up the installation process.


> but I don't see the benefit - no-ione should be doing "from
> pip.vendor.distlib.version import Version".
>
>
That's just asking for trouble if someone did that (plus if you did that it
would be pip._vendor to get the privacy point across).


> I'd need to know better what it means for pip, I guess...
>

I suspect we all do. =)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/attachments/20130713/a2cd7307/attachment.html>