[Pythonmac-SIG] PackMan engine version 0.4

[has]

Bob wrote:

>>Couple quick questions for clarification while working on a reply 
>>to other points:
>>
>>1. Can Python module binaries be distributed using standard .pkg installers?
>
>click, click, click, click.. wait 5 minutes to optimize.

Must be that famous Apple 'ease-of-use' ... :)

>Yes, they can.. but ugh.  Packages with a bunch of dependencies 
>would be really difficult to represent as a pkg properly.  You 
>wouldn't want to use a mpkg, because they you would need all of the 
>original pkg files for dependencies.. and using an install test 
>script would be really annoying.  Also, it's not entirely clear 
>*which* Python a pkg file would install to, and it would be a bit 
>much of a burden on the user to choose a site-packages folder.

The question was more to check there's more than one way to do it, 
not to determine which is necessarily the best.


>>2. How big a deal is the compiler dependency on OS X? I realise it 
>>was a non-starter for OS9, but OS X provides the BSD layer [as 
>>standard??]
>
>It's a really big deal, compiling something like VTK can take a 
>REALLY REALLY long time to compile, SciPy needs a fortran compiler 
>to get everything, wxPython and PyQt are other big ones.  It might 
>be preferable to compile some of the scientific stuff with an 
>expensive/exotic compiler, too.

Again, just checking TMTOWTDI.


>   And then there's the C dependency game.  If you have Fink 
>installed, it can really screw things up, too.
>
>Basically, you just haven't been trying to compile the 'right' 
>modules, and you don't have an environment that gets in the way.

I've been compiling the modules that I've needed; so you could say 
they're the 'right' ones for me. And my environment is straight out 
of the box; I'm not smart enough to modify it, and therefore not 
smart enough to break it either. :)

I do understand what you're saying, btw, so feel I ought to clarify 
where I'm coming from as it's rather a different perspective and I 
don't want anyone to think I'm just doing this to honk folk off with 
a malicious troll or anything like that:

First, the reason for asking these questions is that I already 
realise PM has been designed to handle the worst-case installations; 
however, in doing so it's completely dropped the ball on 
light-to-average installations. First rule of software usability: 
simple things should be simple, difficult things should at least be 
possible. PM, in trying hard to make latter simple, completely 
neglects the former; and it's reasonable to assume that it's the 
former that makes up the vast majority of use cases.

Now, this wouldn't be such a problem if PM was positioned as a 
complement to a broader distribution mechanism; the latter taking 
care of light-to-average installations, with PM stepping in only for 
those special-cases that the more general system isn't intended to 
cater for. However, it seems to be marketed as the main [sole?] 
system for _Mac_Python users to install third-party modules.

So, to summarise where I'm going with this... I see three main areas 
where PM has problems: 1. usability, 2. concept/policy and 3. 
positioning/marketing. The first is what folk are most likely to 
identify problems in simply because it's the most obvious. However, 
although I've found various usability flaws myself, I'm not going to 
ignore these for now and concentrate on what I see as much more 
significant problems in the other two areas.

And hey, I might be right, might be wrong. In either case, only way 
to find out is by airing 'em in public; see what sinks, and see what 
floats. No asbestos required, though raspberries may be provided 
where appropriate.:)

More later...

Regards,

has
-- 
http://freespace.virgin.net/hamish.sanderson/