Python Package Managment

david.lyon at preisshare.net david.lyon at preisshare.net
Thu Jan 29 01:12:21 CET 2009


Hi,

<snip>
>>> People coming to Python from Perl and Ruby expect to be able to just
>>> run a command to download and install a package. </snip>

TRUE TRUE....

Forgive me, but I am no python specialist. But I use all the other
languages as well and python isn't up to standard in this area.

Perphaps 50% of all my python time, is spent searching and testing packages
for what I need off peoples web sites. It is crazy...

In perl it is so much easier on cpan, but i hate the language (perl)...

I really propose something be done about it, but it takes a team.... 

In perl, it is so easy to remember "ppm" (perl package manager)..

My only suggestion is that allowance be made for platform specific
components, ie, windows, mac... because under windows, a lot of the tools I
use are platform specific linking to the o/s. It would be desirable to
seperate those out from packages that are not platform specific.

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 19:53:42 +0900, David Cournapeau <cournape at gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Bernard Rankin <berankin99 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> [extracted from pylons-discuss]
>>
>>
>>> >> I hate to pass the buck, but this is Python's fault for not having
>>> >> reliable package management built in.  There's nothing Pylons can do
>>> >> about it except switch to another programming language.
>>> > [SNIP]
>>>
>>> Without Setuptools,
>>> Pylons and TurboGears couldn't exist, and Zope and Twisted
>>> would not have been able to split themselves into several packages.
>>> People coming to Python from Perl and Ruby expect to be able to just
>>> run a command to download and install a package.  That problem was
>>> solved ten years ago, so why does Python still not have it standard?
>>>
>>> If Setuptools and Virtualenv or the equivalent were built into Python,
>>> you could trust that every computer that has successfully installed
>>> Python can install packages and make virtual environments the same
>>> way..
>>>
>>> That would eliminate 2/3 of the problems users have when
>>> installing Pylons, and the subsequent need to explain the problems and
>>> workarounds in the installation docs.  At
>>> work people say, "Half the trouble of Pylons is installing it", and I
>>> often have to help them install it in person because otherwise they
>>> get stuck at some error message and have no idea what to do.
>>>
>>
>> Agreed.  I would even move ipython (or something like it) to core.
>>
>> Of course, even Setuptools has a long way to go in some areas.
> (Installation Rollback, for one.)
>>
>> Python is about "batteries included", and these are major "batteries" in
> most modern environments.
>>
>> A CPAN like "in-house hosted" archive would nice, too.  This way,
> modules have a better chance of outliving the original author's
> interest/commitment in paying for, possibly non-trivial, web hosting.
>>
>> I'm sure these issues has been discussed to death, but I wonder what the
> larger Python community thinks.
> 
> You may be interested in the following:
> 
> http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-April/063952.html
> 
> The thread is two years and a half old, but my impression is that the
> situation has not changeed much since. Few if any people are against
> improving the situation, but more people are against the currently
> available solutions (setuptools, virtualenv, etc...).
> 
> cheers,
> 
> David
> --
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list




More information about the Python-list mailing list