[Distutils] The future of invoking pip

[Ionel Cristian Mărieș]

On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 12:24 AM, Donald Stufft <donald at stufft.io> wrote:

> Well, it’s not really a launcher no, but you’d do ``pip -p python2 install
> foo`` or something like that. It’s the same UI. Having just a “launcher” I
> think is actually more confusing (and we already had that in the past with
> -E and removed it because it was confusing). Since you’ll have different
> versions of pip in different environments (Python or virtual) things break
> or act confusingly.
>

​That can't be worse than the current situation. And I'm not asking to
bring `-E` back.

The idea is that the pip bin becomes a launcher file, just like py.exe - it
would just try to discover an appropiate python and run `-mpip` with it.
This doesn't even need​

​to be implemented in pip - linux distributions can do this.

For windows it's more tricky - but if Python on windows has getpip ​why
can't it bundle a pip.exe, just like py.exe?

Another issue that is being conflated here is the most frequent scenario:
using virtualenv activation. We should should be really be talking about
deprecating the activation shell scripts - messing with $PATH is what we
should really look at - not deprecating `pip` bin over to the overly
tedious `python -mpip`.




Thanks,
-- Ionel Cristian Mărieș, http://blog.ionelmc.ro
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/attachments/20151108/292b0761/attachment-0001.html>