[Distutils] Using Wheel with zipimport

[Donald Stufft]

On Jan 29, 2014, at 8:31 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 29 January 2014 23:16, Donald Stufft <donald at stufft.io> wrote:
>> So basically even though the text of the PEP specifically points out that a difference
>> of Wheel and Egg is that Eggs are importable it somehow supports that? Can you
>> point to a single line in the PEP that supports this besides the ones you've added?
> 
> I added the clarification based on the facts that:
> 
> 1. We discussed this extensively before PEP 427 was approved, and this
> was an accepted feature of the design
> 2. Root-is-purelib only makes sense in the context of supporting the feature
> 3. Both ensurepip and virtualenv rely on the feature
> 4. PEP 453 explicitly documents ensurepip's reliance on the feature,
> with no caveat about this being unsupported in the spec
> 5. I wouldn't have accepted PEP 427 if wheels didn't provide a strict
> superset of the features provided by eggs
> 
> We make mistakes, and things that were discussed and agreed don't
> always get properly captured in the corresponding PEPs.
> 
> When that happens, it's a judgement call as to whether properly
> documenting that is a new feature requiring a new PEP, or merely a
> clarification to the existing one. For standard library PEPs, we often
> don't do either - we just fix the implementation without going back
> for another round of PEP discussions (for smaller tweaks, sometimes we
> don't even go back to python-dev and instead just resolve things on
> the tracker).
> 
> In this case, as BDFL-Delegate, I decided it was a case that merely
> called for clarification, because I *know* what spec I accepted, and
> it was the one where wheels offer all the features that eggs do and
> more. I added the new text specifically because people like Armin
> Ronacher and yourself had gained an idea from the PEP text that
> emphatically does *not* align with the design discussions that
> occurred prior to the acceptance of the PEP.
> 
> Now, if you'd like to campaign to *remove* this support, then explain
> your rationale, and make the case for why you think providing the
> feature is so dangerous that removing it is worth breaking backwards
> compatibility over.
> 
> Regards,
> Nick.
> 
> -- 
> Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia

This was supposedly extensively discussed prior to PEP427 being
accepted yet I have no memory of this being discussed, am unable
to find any discussion of it (other than one offs saying it’s possible
but not a core feature), and you’ve been apparently unwilling to
point to any discussion.

-----------------
Donald Stufft
PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/attachments/20140129/79c61f5f/attachment.sig>