Overall, I think that's quite reasonable, but I think I need to pick at the
both sides way this is framed.
I don't recall anyone here suggesting that it's a problem is Python upstream
wants to ship Python binaries. While I think that there are issues with some
of the upstream design choices, I
I happen to be subscribed here, so figured I'd comment :)
FWIW I think the way the discussions are going... really in both locations.. is
needlessly taking shots at each other.
I've commented on discuss.python.org, but figured I'd repeat myself here.
I think the way these discussions devolve in
Hi Ian (2024.05.26_01:33:09_+)
> I am puzzled about some of the responses there, how can anyone expect to
> randomly update packages on the system using pip and not have it go wrong
> on any distribution? This is why things like pipenv exist.
People don't understand that stuff until they dig t
That's just too crazy to let change a core system dependency so easily
from outside.
I'll just say that the equal amount of FUD and ranting can be easily
generated abotu Debian or even just about Debian Python packaging.
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Hi,
I have always found most of issues mentioned in the thread a welcome change
instead, and if anything the far superior ability of apt to automatically
remove all the installed dependencies in case of the removal of a package
compared to the complete inability of pip has always left me in awe
On Sunday, 26 May 2024 03:33:09 CEST Ian Norton wrote:
> I am puzzled about some of the responses there, how can anyone expect to
> randomly update packages on the system using pip and not have it go wrong
> on any distribution? This is why things like pipenv exist.
Or whatever today's tool is cal
7 matches
Mail list logo
