[Python-Dev] how to easily consume just the parts of eggs that are good for you

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Stephen Hansen writes:
 > >
 > >  > > IMHO, the main system without a package manager is Windows.
 > >  >
 > >  > AFAICT the MacOS platform also lacks in this area.
 > >
 > > Actually, they both have them.  Windows has Cygwin (rpm-based), while
 > > for MacOS Fink (deb-based), MacPorts (FreeBSD ports-like), and
 > > NetBSD's pkgsrc are all viable options if you want packaging support
 > > for 3rd-party packages.
 > 
 > Er, excuse me for cutting in but-- that's just not at all the same
 > thing.

[...]

 > I do think its valuable to do so in a way that will integrate with native
 > package managers on those operating systems that they are a native and
 > integrated part of

Why restrict it to those?  That's my point.  If you're going to make
it apt-compatible, you should do all the others, too, because there
are lots of people using them.  Whether or not they are OS-provided.
As far as I'm concerned, asking a Python tool to integrate into any
pms is a non-starter because it really means asking for integration
into all of them.

 > but to say, "Let's not re-create apt!" is a sorrowful stance. It's
 > saying, "Screw Windows, because it isn't as good as what we have." 
 > and "Screw Mac, because its not as good as we have."

It's worse than that.  One point I hoped to make is that "Let's not
recreate apt!" is a way of saying "Screw Windows and Mac and Red Hat
and Gentoo and NetBSD and FreeBSD and ...."

I think it's worth working out a standard format for documenting
dependencies so that a downstream distributor can easily create a
dependency graph (perhaps several of them, since system bootstrap,
package build-time, and package run-time may have different
requirements).  And standard Python distribution media should have a
"manual mode" so that distros can decide where to put things.  But
that's as far as Python itself should ever go; fitting those things
into any given pms is the downstream distro's job.