[Distutils] Metadata 2.0: Warning if optional features are missing
mmericke at gmail.com
Tue Dec 15 15:18:18 EST 2015
FWIW here is the original SQLAlchemy thread from last year that I was
talking about when suggesting the external dependency on a sqlalchemy-cext
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Robert Collins <robertc at robertcollins.net>
> On 16 December 2015 at 07:30, Paul Moore <p.f.moore at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 15 December 2015 at 16:37, Michael Merickel <mmericke at gmail.com>
> >> It seems to me this would be easily accomplished by declaring some
> >> like "cext" as default-included and if the install fails someone can
> depend on
> >> "sqlalchemy[-cext]". The UI isn't quite as nice as your proposal but
> >> existing machinery.
> > Hmm, so sqlalchemy says it provides an extra "speedups" (or "cext") by
> > default, checks for a compiler, and removes that extra from what's
> > installed if there's no compiler available?
> > Not sure why anyone would depend on sqlalchemy[-cext] - they should
> > always depend on sqlalchemy, as there's no functional difference
> > between with speedups and without. And the user should never specify
> > the extra, all they do is install a compiler and rebuild.
> >>> What I'd like to be able to do:
> >>> 1. pip install sqlalchemy works, but shows a warning "optional feature
> >>> speedups not installed - no C compiler"
> >> Extras wouldn't give a nice message like this. The install would fail
> >> the user would have to guess as to why and then opt out of the default
> >> extra. Perhaps some better error message could be displayed if the
> >> failed to install and had a default extra included to show how to opt
> > But the install doesn't fail - it succeeds and works fine, just
> > without some speedups. That's exactly what I want. In my particular
> > case I was installing csvkit which depends on sqlalchemy. It doesn't
> > (nor should it) say that it doesn't need the speedups, nor should I
> > have to manually locate the specific dependency (from a list of many)
> > and install it by hand before my install works. The current behaviour
> > (pip install csvkit -> a working csvkit with no issues) is perfect.
> > But if I later want to use SQLalchemy independently, or I find that a
> > particular usage of csvkit is too slow, I want to know that there's a
> > speedups module I can get by downloading a binary build or installing
> > my own compiler. And I want to be able to install it transparently.
> >>> 3. A command to reinstall the currently installed version with new
> >>> pip install --add-options sqlalchemy[speedups]
> >>> (Note that a plain pip install doesn't do this, as it won't
> >>> reinstall. And --upgrade or --ignore-installed will install newer
> >>> versions).
> >> This should be done by simply reinstalling the package via "pip install
> >> sqlalchemy[speedups]". I doubt you need an extra --add-options flag to
> >> compete with extras.
> > I guess you're saying add [speedups] as a way of requesting a rebuild?
> > But if the build fails, would that remove sqlalchemy, or leave the
> > existing build there? (I'd hope the latter).
> > Won't that say "sqlalchemy is already installed"? (I've never used
> > extras with pip, so I don't know). Also what if there's been a newer
> > version of sqlalchemy released? Won't it get that one?
> > I specifically want to say here "just reinstall the exact version I
> > have here, but try again to include optional stuff that I didn't get
> > last time". (In practice I don't really care much if I upgrade, so
> > --upgrade or --ignore-installed is probably fine in reality).
> > Anyway, all of this requires people to implement it, in pip and build
> > tools, as well as projects to adopt it. So it's not really important
> > that the details get thrashed out right now, just that we establish
> > whether it's a practical scenario to support, and get a feel for how
> > much work it would be for projects to adopt it (if it's too much, they
> > won't, and the feature will end up unused). So the fact that extras
> > might be able to support this is the main point here, not the details
> > of how it would work - so thanks.
> I'm not sure that extras would support it cleanly.
> I agree that it is a common use case; in general I'd say
> 1) consumers (users and depending projects) shouldn't need to know
> about accelerators
> 2) some environments will need to be able to exclude them [known to build
> 3) some consumers will need to be able to mandate them [either using
> an acclerator only feature, or their thing is known to be infeasible
> without them]
> 4) there needs to be a means to get accelerators if they didn't
> install first time around
> 5) projects with accelerators shouldn't be forced to split the
> accelerators into separate projects
> Some issues with reusing extras are:
> - extras refer to things in the dependency graph, but as
> distributions are the installable things and the graph nodes are
> distributions, foo[fast] is - in widespread deployment - entirely and
> only a list of additional distributions.
> - there's no concept of 'default extra', and there is no clear path
> for bringing it in compatibly, at least so far
> - we haven't worked through the ui implications about which end of
> the relation this should be configured: should consumers be specifying
> them, or providers?
> - negative operators on extras are as yet undefined, and due to the
> dependencies of an install being a graph, not a tree, a naive
> definition is likely very hard to use IMO
> Recommends and suggests are an interesting way of modelling this, and
> its possible we don't need an exclude relation- rather users should
> blacklist them globally in the target environment somehow, which would
> contain that partcular complexity.
> Robert Collins <rbtcollins at hpe.com>
> Distinguished Technologist
> HP Converged Cloud
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Distutils-SIG