[Distutils] distil 0.1.1 released

[Nick Coghlan]

On 3 May 2013 11:39, "Donald Stufft" <donald at stufft.io> wrote:
>
>
> On May 2, 2013, at 9:02 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 9:30 AM, Donald Stufft <donald at stufft.io> wrote:
> >>
> >> On May 2, 2013, at 7:17 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 3 May 2013 09:08, "Donald Stufft" <donald at stufft.io> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On May 2, 2013, at 6:48 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> "pip --user" manipulates the per-user directories (and I believe I
filed
> >>>> a ticket a while back suggesting it should migrate to the model
distil now
> >>>> uses).
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>> Nick.
> >>>
> >>> I don't think it makes sense for pip to do this tbh.
> >>
> >> Language level installers should leave "/usr" alone by default, as
that part
> >> of the filesystem is the domain of system packages.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Nick.
> >>
> >> Out of the three primary OSs only one of them has a concept of system
> >> packages. Regardless it's a major change in behavior and isn't  a
clear cut
> >> right or wrong choice. It's going to need a stronger justification
than that
> >> to break backwards compatibility in such a large way.
> >
> > How about: I won't approve PEP 439 as long as pip still writes to the
> > system site-packages by default when running as an ordinary user on
> > Linux systems? "sudo pip" needs to be banished from the command line
> > lexicon of Python developers.
> >
> > The transition isn't that hard: add --system now, switch the default
> > from --system to --user for anyone *other than root* some time before
> > Python 3.4. Anyone using virtual environments or an explicit --user or
> > --system will be utterly unaffected when the default changes, as will
> > anyone running an explicit "sudo pip" (in order to get write access to
> > the system Python site-packages).
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Nick.
> >
> > --
> > Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia
>
> So your answer to my wanting stronger justification is "because I said
so"?

Because sysadmins don't participate in upstream development and
non-platform provided tools messing with /usr is wrong, wrong, wrong.

The system Python is the domain of distro tools, we should be leaving it
the hell alone.

Cheers,
Nick.

>
> *Why* does ``sudo pip`` need to be banished? ``pip install --user`` is
not any safer, it's not
> any more or less wrong. It's an option. If pip was brand new I'd probably
be of the opinion
> that I prefer the user scheme by default. However pip is not new, and it
has a long history
> of working in this way. Changes can be made but I'm loath to support a
large change in
> behavior like this without strong justification as to *why*.
>
> I also think your proposed solution of --user being the default unless we
are running as root
> is suboptimal. Conditional defaults are confusing to end users, even more
so when a common
> "error" condition (e.g. I forgot to type sudo before I pip installed, or
I forgot to activate my virtualenv)
> is going to move from being an error to installing to the user scheme and
*working*… right up until
> the time you actually try and use it.
>
> -----------------
> Donald Stufft
> PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372
DCFA
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/attachments/20130503/73ce18db/attachment.html>