On Tuesday, December 02, 2014 19:28:20 Donald Stufft wrote: > > On Dec 2, 2014, at 6:32 PM, Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com> wrote: > > > > Assuming the maintainer doesn't decide to downgrade the bug (which I think > > is unlikely and a number of people would object to, so I think we can > > ignore it as a possibility), the decision to ignore the bug for Jessie > > belongs with the release team. If we choose not to fix it (and there's > > no Non-Maintainer Upload), then they will decide to either remove the > > package or ignore the bug. > > > > Since this particular issue is release critical, the December 5th deadline > > isn't relevant to a targeted fix just for this issue. > > > > Scott K > > So the issue here is that pip is removing apt “owned” files implicitly > during an upgrade right? Looking at easy_install there’s no Serious bug > there and the primary difference between what will happen if you > easy_install something and pip install something is that pip might remove > files from /usr/lib. In both cases the items installed by both solutions > will be in /usr/local/lib. > > So what if Debian just patched python-pip so that it doesn’t remove the > files from /usr/lib (but it would remove files from /usr/local etc). This > would have the effect of pip not touching dpkg owned files which would > bring it in line with that easy_install does. /usr/local/lib takes > precedence over /usr/lib so it won’t break things for people actually > trying to install things to /usr/local. > > There *might* be some edge cases that occurs with having two versions of a > package on sys.path, but I can’t think of any offhand (and either way, > those edge cases already exist if someone does > ``apt-get install python-requests && pip install —upgrade requests`` and > then later on Debian releases a new update to python-requests since those > files that pip removed will get reinstalled in that situation. > > That should fix the immediate problem this bug addresses and then we can > figure out a longer term “real” fix in upstream pip that can go into > Jessie+1.
Speaking only for myself, I think that sounds reasonable. It's well established I believe in Debian Python usage that if a user installs packages in /usr/local and break their system, they are on their own, so I'm not particularly worried about the edge cases for having the same python package installed in /usr/lib and /usr/local, it's on whoever installed stuff in /usr/local. Being no more broken than easy_install seems like a reasonable compromise to me. Scott K _______________________________________________ Python-modules-team mailing list Python-modules-team@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/python-modules-team
