[Pythonmac-SIG] Package Manager idea, adding a URL scheme

Just van Rossum just at letterror.com
Fri Oct 3 12:47:40 EDT 2003

Jack Jansen wrote:

> > I don't follow: if you're building/installing package X yourself,
> > why would you then want to use PackMan for package X also? I see it
> > pretty much as an either/or situation.
> Not for package X but for dependent packages! Think of the following
> scenario: you maintain package X, that is also in PackMan. Package Y
> depends on package X but you don't maintain it. With a know-it-all
> package manager you cannot install Y to use your X.

I don't see why not: the dependencies don't need to be "hard".

> There are now three options open to you:
> - trick the package manager to think that it installed X
> - install every package depending on X by hand
> - install two copies of X, one for your development and one
>    through the package manager for use by dependent packages.

- Install package Y, getting a dialog that goes something like this:

    Package Y depends on X version a.b.c. You've installed an
    unknown version of Y. What would you like to do?

    [Cancel] [Install X and Y a.b.c] [Install X]

In other words, it could be up to the user to decide whether to let
PackMan handle dependencies or not.

> All of this falls under my favorite annoyance #4: things that
> get in the way of developers for no obvious reason.

Well, lets improve PackMan then...

> > PackMan is for end users. A certain amount of complexity for
> > _developers_ seems pretty much unavoidable, and would be totally
> > acceptable to me.
> >
> > I strongly feel that executing arbitrary code (even from a trusted
> > source) is a big nono.
> Uhm... How about arbitrary setup.py scripts included with packages?

Isn't the whole point of PackMan to _not_ have to execute any setup.py's
to begin with? With setup.py you build a distro, PackMan does the
install without it. Am I missing something?


More information about the Pythonmac-SIG mailing list