> On Jan 22, 2016, at 6:04 PM, Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com> wrote: > > On Friday, January 22, 2016 05:50:13 PM Donald Stufft wrote: > ... >> We already have an option like this, the —root option which will just append >> a different prefix to all of the installation paths. So essentially instead >> of invoking ``python setup.py install —root /tmp/something/`` which is what >> I think you’re doing now, you’d do ``pip install —root /tmp/something/ >> —no-deps .`` and it’d just work similarly to what you have now, except pip >> would be responsible for interacting with the Python build system. > ... > > Why would pip interacting with the Python build system instead of setuptools > be better? > > Scott K
setuptools *is* the build system right now (or distutils if you’re still using that). So the benefit to Debian right now would be: We maintain the distutils/setuptools hacks to make them suck less so you don’t have to! Longer term, we want to enable people to go hog wild and invent their own build systems instead of trying to do it all one size fits all with everyone miserable because it doesn’t solve anyones problems nicely. At that point the benefit to Debian becomes that instead of having to implement the standard build tool interface that these tools implement (Which will most likely be geared towards produces wheels, not towards putting files on disk in an installed location) Debian can just let us maintain that bit of code too. Of course, if Debian would prefer to interact directly with these tools, it’s totally fine to do that. The whole point of us doing this work and trying to define formats and APIs and not bless implementations is so anyone who wants to can slot in their own tool in the process instead of being forced to use some blessed tool. ----------------- Donald Stufft PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
