[Numpy-discussion] Proposal: stop supporting 'setup.py install'; start requiring 'pip install .' instead
cournape at gmail.com
Tue Oct 27 10:46:28 EDT 2015
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Edison Gustavo Muenz <
edisongustavo at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm sorry if this is out-of-topic, but I'm curious on why nobody mentioned
> Conda yet.
Conda is a binary distribution system, whereas we are talking about
installing from sources. You will need a way to install things when
building a conda package in any case
> Is there any particular reason for not using it?
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 11:48 AM, James E.H. Turner <jehturner at gmail.com>
>> Apparently it is not well known that if you have a Python project
>>> source tree (e.g., a numpy checkout), then the correct way to install
>>> it is NOT to type
>>> python setup.py install # bad and broken!
>>> but rather to type
>>> pip install .
>> Though I haven't studied it exhaustively, it always seems to me that
>> pip is bad & broken, whereas python setup.py install does what I
>> expect (even if it's a mess internally). In particular, when
>> maintaining a distribution of Python packages, you try to have some
>> well-defined, reproducible build from source tarballs and then you
>> find that pip is going off and downloading stuff under the radar
>> without being asked (etc.). Stopping that can be a pain & I always
>> groan whenever some package insists on using pip. Maybe I don't
>> understand it well enough but in this role its dependency handling
>> is an unnecessary complication with no purpose. Just a comment that
>> not every installation is someone trying to get numpy on their
>> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
>> NumPy-Discussion at scipy.org
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion at scipy.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NumPy-Discussion