[Distutils] The future of invoking pip

[Wes Turner]

On Nov 10, 2015 11:09 PM, "Wayne Werner" <waynejwerner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> With all of the weirdness involved, it makes me wonder - could there be a
better way? If we waved our hands and were able to magically make Python
package management perfect, what would that look like?
>
> Would that kind of discussion even be valuable?

e.g. re-specifying the mission, goals, and objectives of PyPA?

or e.g. creating a set of numbered user stories / specification
requirements?

"[Users] can [...] (in order to [...] (thus [saving\gaining] [resource
xyz]))"

* Users can install packages from a package index IOT:
  * share code: sdist
  * share binaries: save build time,

* Users can specify (python) package dependencies

* [ ] Users can specify (platform) package (build) dependencies
  * e.g. libssl-dev
  * conda does not solve for this either

* [ ] Users can link between built packages and source VCS revisions with
URIs
  * platform-rev / rev-platform
  * **diff**

>
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015, 6:22 PM Nathaniel Smith <njs at pobox.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I totally get why people dislike the ergonomics of 'python -m pip',
>> but we can also acknowledge that it does solve a real technical
>> problem: it strictly reduces the number of things that can go wrong,
>> in a tool that's down at the base of the stack.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Distutils-SIG maillist  -  Distutils-SIG at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/attachments/20151111/d5ea0544/attachment.html>