On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 05:41:52PM +0200, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > ok, I forgot to add ";)", but...
Sure, but let's be more careful - I don't want people quoting "Debian Python" people telling people they're going to purge pip from the archive... It's all too often I hear people complain about Debian at PyCon, and I'm getting sick and tired of it. > > 1) pip isn't for global package management, for this is stupid. If we > > disabled root use of pip, I think we'd all be a bit happier. > > tell that to most (sic!) Python app/library authors who recommend to I don't need to - this is a pretty commonly accepted fact with pythonistas. Most people know not to run pip with sudo on a sane linux system. > "sudo pip/ez_install ..." in their README files in order to install > their software (and tools like pip do not care that given files exist, > they just overwrite them (did rpm or dpkg do this 10 years ago?), not to > mention that they do that in /usr and not in ~/.local or at least > /usr/local (which they should not touch as well, BTW, only admins can, > but how can they know that? Why should developer on Windows care about > FHS?) > > Don't get me wrong, I think pip has some valid use cases (f.e. inside > virtalenv), I even recommend it sometimes, but forcing us to use it > instead of our (much better) tools / breaking things we carefully > prepared for our users is just not acceptable. I don't disagree, but this isn't a reason to hate on pip. This is a reason to tell the people who wrote this proposal we'd likely not comply, but leave it as an installable component for development work. > > > 2) pip workes on *every* supported OS. If you think OSX users or windows > > users are installing Python modules with dpkg, you're off your rocker. > > Windows has its own distribution system (.exe installers). MacOS has > .dmg files (IIRC), Linux distributions have .rpm, .deb, .tar, ... yawn, see point 1 > It's not possible for Python developer to get it right on each system > so instead of reinventing the wheel and trying to make something that > works everywhere they should make it easier for others to convert > whatever they provide (tarballs?) into .rpm, .deb or .exe. They should > not try to replace our rpm or dpkg! (vide: gems) > > > 3) We're *NOT* trying to package every module and put it in the > > archive, for this, also, is stupid. pip can install from pypi, > > which *is* such a place. Or even Git checkout URLs. > > that doesn't mean they can mess with software we prepared for our > users. It takes only one egg or gem to ruin months of Linux packager's yawn, see point 1 > work. Admins can use pypi-install to install packages that are not in > the archive, we don't need eggs or whls, not in places where it > interferes with system software. > > > 4) Python modules from dpkg are borderline useless for developers. We > > package modules so that apps can use them, not so that people can > > develop with them. > > nobody forces Python/Ruby/... developers to use libraries prepared by > us... and yet they want to force us to use their .eggs and overwrite our > files. yawn, see point 1 I said pretty clearly I don't advocate for this to be used globally. Cheers, Paul -- .''`. Paul Tagliamonte <paul...@debian.org> : :' : Proud Debian Developer `. `'` 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87 `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
