[Distutils] Q about best practices now (or near future)
ncoghlan at gmail.com
Sun Jul 21 02:08:45 CEST 2013
On 21 Jul 2013 04:43, "Daniel Holth" <dholth at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 2:10 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 20 July 2013 01:47, PJ Eby <pje at telecommunity.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com>
> >>> Right, I think the reasonable near term solutions are for pip to
> >>> 1. generate zc.buildout style wrappers with absolute paths to avoid
> >>> the implied runtime dependency
> >>> 2. interpret use of script entry points as an implied dependency on
> >>> setuptools and install it even if not otherwise requested
> >>> Either way, pip would need to do something about its *own* command
> >>> line script, which heavily favours option 1
> >> Option 1 also would address some or all of the startup performance
> >> It occurs to me that it might actually be a good idea *not* to put the
> >> script wrappers in the standard entry points file, even if that's what
> >> setuptools does right now: if lots of packages use that approach,
> >> it'll slow down the effective indexing for code that's scanning
> >> multiple packages for something like a sqlalchemy adapter.
> >> (Alternately, we could use something like
> >> 'exports-some.group.name.json' so that each export group is a separate
> >> file; this would keep scripts separate from everything else, and
> >> optimize plugin searches falling in a particular group. In fact, the
> >> files needn't have any contents; it'd be okay to just parse the main
> >> .json for any distribution that has exports in the group you're
> >> looking for. i.e., the real purpose of the separation of entry points
> >> was always just to avoid loading metadata for distributions that don't
> >> have the kind of exports you're looking for. In the old world, few
> >> distributions exported anything, so just identifying whether a
> >> distribution had exports was sufficient. In the new world, more and
> >> more distributions over time will have some kind of export, so knowing
> >> *which* exports they have will become more important.)
> > A not-so-quick sketch of my current thinking:
> > Two new fields in PEP 426: commands and exports
> > Like the core dependency metadata, both get generated files:
> > pydist-commands.json and pydist-exports.json
> > (As far as the performance concern goes, I think longer term we'll
> > probably move to a richer installation database format that includes
> > an SQLite cache file managed by the installers. But near term, I like
> > the idea of being able to check "has commands or not" and "has exports
> > or not" with a single stat call for the appropriate file)
> > Rather than using the "module.name:qualified.name" format (as the PEP
> > currently does for the install_hooks), "export specifiers" would be
> > defined as a mapping with the following subfields:
> > * module
> > * qualname (as per PEP 3155)
> > * extra
> > Both qualname and extra would be optional. "extra" indicates that the
> > export is only present if that extra is installed.
> > The top level commands field would have three subfields:
> > "wrap_console", "wrap_gui" and "prebuilt". The wrap_console and
> > wrap_gui subfields would both be maps of command names to export
> > specifiers (i.e. requests for an installer to generate the appropriate
> > wrappers), while prebuilt would be a mapping of command names to paths
> > relative to the scripts directory (as strings).
> > Note that given that Python 2.7+ and 3.2+ can execute packages with a
> > __main__ submodule, the export specifier for a command entry *may*
> > just be the module component and it should still work.
> > The exports field is just a rebranded and slightly rearranged
> > entry_points structure: the top level keys in the hash map are "export
> > groups" (defined in the same way as metadata extensions are defined)
> > and the individual entries in each export group are arbitrary keys
> > (meaning determined by the export group) mapping to export specifiers.
> > With this change, I may even move the current top level
> > "install_hooks" field inside the "exports" field. Even if it stay at
> > the top level, the values will become export specifiers rather than
> > using the entry points string format.
> > Not sure when I'll get that tidied up and incorporated into a new
> > draft of PEP 426, but I think it covers everything.
> > For those wondering about my dividing line between "custom string
> > format" and "structured data": the custom string formats in PEP 426
> > should be limited to things that are likely to be passed as command
> > line arguments (like requirement specifiers and their assorted
> > components), or those where using structured data would be
> > extraordinarily verbose (like environment markers). If I have any
> > custom string formats still in there that don't fit either of those
> > categories, then let me know and I'll see if I can replace them with
> > structured data.
> > Cheers,
> > Nick.
> It may be worth mentioning that I am not aware of any package that
> uses the "entry point requires extra" feature.
> IIUC pkg_resources doesn't just check whether something's installed
> but attempts to add the requirements of the entry point's distribution
> and any requested extras to sys.path as part of resolution.
I see it as more useful for making an executable optional by defining a
"cli" extra. If your project just gets installed as a dependency, no
wrapper would get generated.
Only if you went "pip install myproject[cli]" (or another project
specifically depended on the cli extra) would it be installed.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Distutils-SIG