[Python-Dev] PEP 453 (pip bootstrapping) ready for pronouncement? (original) (raw)
Antoine Pitrou solipsis at pitrou.net
Thu Sep 26 16:10:46 CEST 2013
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] PEP 453 (pip bootstrapping) ready for pronouncement?
- Next message: [Python-Dev] PEP 453 (pip bootstrapping) ready for pronouncement?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Le Thu, 26 Sep 2013 14:54:49 +1000, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> a écrit :
On 26 September 2013 14:30, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote: > That said, there are changes that I think are definitely worth > making due to the concerns you raise: > > - the module name should be "ensurepip" in all versions > - the PEP should explicitly state that the "don't remove ensurepip > and it's wheel files" caveat for redistributors applies only in 3.4+ > (where removing it will break pyvenv)
Donald pointed out it makes more sense to continue with the idea of a properly documented public "ensurepip" module in 3.4+, and have the "ensurepip" version as an implementation detail of the 2.7 and 3.3 installers that is included in the stdlib primarily so it can be covered by the existing buildbot fleet.
Hmm, but what is the point of "_ensurepip" exactly? Are people supposed to type "python -m _ensurepip"?
With all due respect, Barry's argument looks rather paranoid to me. I would suggest a clear choice:
- either having "ensurepip" in 2.7 is useful and we endorse it as a public module (not something hidden somewhere) - which I personally think is reasonable
- or it's not useful and we don't introduce it at all
A middleground doesn't make sense here, except in a broken "design by committee" sense.
Regards
Antoine.
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] PEP 453 (pip bootstrapping) ready for pronouncement?
- Next message: [Python-Dev] PEP 453 (pip bootstrapping) ready for pronouncement?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]