Based on discussions on IRC, we have a patch for pip 6.0 that I've backported
to the Debian packaged version. I believe it does the right thing now:
# pip install requests
Requirement already satisfied (use --upgrade to upgrade): requests in
/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-pa
On Dec 03, 2014, at 03:20 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
>IMO we should patch pip to *not* touch (install, upgrade, uninstall,
>etc.) anything in /usr directory (or /) except /usr/local. Our Python
>interpreter already installs to /usr/local and so should pip.
+1
>This way:
> * pip doesn't need to f
On Dec 02, 2014, at 10:38 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>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
IMO we should patch pip to *not* touch (install, upgrade, uninstall,
etc.) anything in /usr directory (or /) except /usr/local. Our Python
interpreter already installs to /usr/local and so should pip.
This way:
* pip doesn't need to figure out which file can be touched,
* we can detect cause of
On 12/02/2014 10:38 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 02, 2014 19:28:20 Donald Stufft wrote:
>> 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 to
On Tuesday, December 02, 2014 19:28:20 Donald Stufft wrote:
> > On Dec 2, 2014, at 6:32 PM, Scott Kitterman 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 possib
> On Dec 2, 2014, at 6:32 PM, Scott Kitterman 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
On Tuesday, December 02, 2014 05:17:48 PM Donald Stufft wrote:
> > On Dec 2, 2014, at 5:03 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, December 02, 2014 04:54:37 PM Donald Stufft wrote:
> >>> On Dec 2, 2014, at 4:47 PM, Scott Kitterman
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Tuesday, December 02, 2014 0
> On Dec 2, 2014, at 5:03 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, December 02, 2014 04:54:37 PM Donald Stufft wrote:
>>> On Dec 2, 2014, at 4:47 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, December 02, 2014 04:15:05 PM Donald Stufft wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
I have another question. If we
On Tuesday, December 02, 2014 04:54:37 PM Donald Stufft wrote:
> > On Dec 2, 2014, at 4:47 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, December 02, 2014 04:15:05 PM Donald Stufft wrote:
> > ...
> >
> >> I have another question. If we fix this in the upcoming pip 6 release
> >> what
> >> is th
> On Dec 2, 2014, at 4:47 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, December 02, 2014 04:15:05 PM Donald Stufft wrote:
> ...
>> I have another question. If we fix this in the upcoming pip 6 release what
>> is the chances of getting an exception for pip 6 in the freeze? If I can
>> solve the pro
On Tuesday, December 02, 2014 04:15:05 PM Donald Stufft wrote:
...
> I have another question. If we fix this in the upcoming pip 6 release what
> is the chances of getting an exception for pip 6 in the freeze? If I can
> solve the problem in pip proper and keep the delta between different
> platfor
I'm on my phone so forgive my formatting.
4, 3, 2 I think in order of best to worst in my opinion.
I have another question. If we fix this in the upcoming pip 6 release what is
the chances of getting an exception for pip 6 in the freeze? If I can solve the
problem in pip proper and keep the d
On Tuesday, December 02, 2014 12:37:40 PM Donald Stufft wrote:
> > On Dec 2, 2014, at 12:25 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor
> > wrote:>
> > On 12/02/2014 11:51 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:
> >> I'd very much prefer it if you didn't do this. This *is* going to break
> >> things for people and it's going to ca
> On Dec 2, 2014, at 12:25 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor
> wrote:
>
> On 12/02/2014 11:51 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:
>> I'd very much prefer it if you didn't do this. This *is* going to break
>> things
>> for people and it's going to cause a bunch of confusion.
>
> It's not clear to me which side yo
On 12/02/2014 11:51 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:
> I'd very much prefer it if you didn't do this. This *is* going to break things
> for people and it's going to cause a bunch of confusion.
It's not clear to me which side you're arguing for. can you clarify
which action is going to break things for p
I'd very much prefer it if you didn't do this. This *is* going to break things
for people and it's going to cause a bunch of confusion.
---
Donald Stufft
PGP: 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject o
Quoting Matthias Klose :
For jessie I suggest to just disable pip when used on the system
python, unless a new option
--yes-i-want-to-screw-up-my-system-python is given.
How about disabling pip for uid 0 altogether?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with
Package: python-pip
Version: 1.5.6-3
Severity: serious
Tags: sid jessie
pip currently silently removes/updates system provided python packages when used
on the system python. This is only seen when a user calls pip with
administrator rights, but it makes debian python packages somehow useless.
19 matches
Mail list logo
