[Python-Dev] PEP 453 (pip bootstrapping) ready for pronouncement?
ncoghlan at gmail.com
Tue Sep 24 09:52:32 CEST 2013
On 24 September 2013 09:34, Ned Deily <nad at acm.org> wrote:
> In general, I think this is a very important usability feature and I
> am in favor of the general approach. Good work, all! I do have some
> comments, primarily about items that are not currently addressed.
Your reply and Barry's suggest that Betteridge's law  applies to
email subject lines, too ;)
As far as easy_install goes, my current plan was actually to tackle
that on the upstream side. If pip still depends on setuptools by the
time of the Python 3.4 release, then it will depend on the *real*
setuptools, easy_install and all. From my perspective, one golden rule
of this integration is that we do *not* mess with the contents of the
wheel files for pip and its dependencies - they're pristine upstream
releases. This is mostly for technical reasons, but it also draws a
sharp line of demarcation for any "aggregation or derivation?"
If pip has been updated by the time of its inclusion to depend on a
cut down setuptools derivative that omits easy_install (or pip has
switched to its own internal replacements instead), so much the
better, but I consider that to be essentially independent of the
CPython bundling situation, since it isn't something we have direct
control over, and I consider the slight downside of potentially
installing easy_install alongside pip to be dwarfed by the benefits of
As far as I am aware, the licensing on setuptools is currently limited
to the "ZPL or PSF" declaration in the distribution metadata.
Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
More information about the Python-Dev