[Numpy-discussion] Proposal: stop supporting 'setup.py install'; start requiring 'pip install .' instead
ben.v.root at gmail.com
Tue Oct 27 10:47:01 EDT 2015
Conda is for binary installs and largely targeted for end-users. This topic
pertains to source installs, and is mostly relevant to developers, testers,
and those who like to live on the bleeding edge of a particular project.
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:31 AM, 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.
> 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