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

[Bob Ippolito]

On Friday, Oct 3, 2003, at 12:47 America/New_York, Just van Rossum 
wrote:

> 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...

Yes, this is exactly what I was thinking.  All these gripes can be 
handled by the UI, and doesn't need to influence the architecture of 
the system so long as the system lets you override any of its guesses.

>>> 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?

I think Jack is thinking too much about source package installs, while 
you and I are focused on binary package installs?  The binary ones are 
the real win of PackMan, and the source package installs would be icing 
on the cake, mostly.

-bob