Barry Warsaw <ba...@debian.org> writes: > On May 29, 2014, at 08:15 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > >I'd rather [Debian] remove the wheels we have and give up on > >ensurepip than start down this slippery slope. > > That means we give up on pyvenv, and given that virtualenv will > eventually be a wrapper around pyvenv, that means we give up on > virtual environments.
Could you expand on that? What is it about pyvenv, or wheel, or both, that leads from Debian removing wheel packages to Debian “giving up on pyvenv”? Or, if you prefer, what is it about pyvenv that makes it infeasible to do without wheel packages? > Wheels are a solution to a problem that is *explicitly* Debian, given > the policy and DFSG violations vendorizing entails. Upstream doesn't > have the same concern. (I think by “to vendorize” you mean “to bundle”. Why the neologism “vendorize”, what is the distinction?) What do wheels do which address Debian in particular? Why is it that Debian can't ignore wheels as superfluous? -- \ “It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one | `\ trifling exception, is composed of others.” —John Andrew Holmes | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/85iooo2hez.fsf...@benfinney.id.au
