[Python-Dev] PEP 453 (pip bootstrapping) ready for pronouncement?
Stephen J. Turnbull
stephen at xemacs.org
Fri Sep 27 16:08:33 CEST 2013
Nick Coghlan writes:
> I'm not sure what usage model you're assuming for _ensurepip, but it
> appears to be wrong. End users should be able to just run pip, and
> either have it work, or else get a message from the OS vendor telling
> them to install the appropriate system package.
I don't understand how you arrange for that message on existing
installs. Wouldn't it be easier to just lobby the distros to make
Python dependent on pip? And speaking of vendors, do you expect Apple
and Microsoft to provide such a message? And such a system package?
If you already are running a Linux distro or MacPorts, you do "apt-get
python-pip" and "port install py-pip" respectively. I bet Cygwin is
the same with yet another spelling. Where's the problem? You say:
> New users on Windows and Mac OS X. I've heard many more complaints
> from folks running tutorials about the pip bootstrapping process than
> I ever have from the community at large about the GIL :P
I bet those users are *not* running third-party distros, but rather
are sitting in front of pretty close to plain vanilla factory installs
of the OS, no? And "new users" on Mac OS X already have "old installs"
of Python, no?
That's my model. In that model I don't see backporting PEP 453 to
Python 2.7 as being a sufficiently reliable way to provide a smooth
user experience to justify breaking the "no new features" rule (which
is at the "read my lips" level after the True/False fiasco).
Get a commitment from Apple to put 2.7.6 in their next upgrades for
their OS, and then maybe you'd have enough leverage to tip the
balance. I certainly would concede the point. But without that,
you're telling Mac users "you have to upgrade Python from a 3rd party
site." Is that really the way to make new users participating in a
tutorial session happy? (You tell me, I'm just introspecting here.)
More information about the Python-Dev