[Python-Dev] Snap Python for simple distribution across multiple Linux distros (original) (raw)
Nick Coghlan ncoghlan at gmail.com
Thu May 25 10:00:21 EDT 2017
- Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Snap Python for simple distribution across multiple Linux distros
- Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Snap Python for simple distribution across multiple Linux distros
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On 25 May 2017 at 20:32, Martin Wimpress <martin.wimpress at canonical.com> wrote:
Hi,
On 23/05/17 17:54, Guido van Rossum wrote:
I think the I inevitable conclusion is"thanks, but no thanks." Can I ask why this the inevitable conclusion? The Python Foundation make packages for Windows and macOS, why not snaps for Linux?
Mainly because there's no real pay-off to CPython as a project in lowering barriers to adoption for end users: if someone is running Linux, they're almost always going to have ready access to completely usable pre-built Python binaries through their system package manager.
That means that if we were to start publishing our own docker/OCI images, or our own snaps, or our own FlatPak runtime environment, we'd be incurring additional ongoing effort without a comparable increase in the audience we're able to effectively reach.
It also relates to the fact that when it comes to the interminable packaging format debates in the Linux world, the typical pattern has been for groups and organisations aiming to promote the use of a particular package format to use the availability of Python to lower the barriers to adoption for their particular offering, rather than the other way around. Some examples:
- Debian takes care of providing deb packages and docker images
- Fedora provides RPMs and docker images
- OpenSUSE provides RPMs (and maybe docker images?)
- the Nix community provide nix packages
- Continuum Analytics provide conda packages
- Heroku take care of providing build packs
- Red Hat provides the RHEL/CentOS and Software Collections RPMs and docker images
- Docker provide Alpine Linux based docker images
- ActiveState and Enthought provide binaries in a suitable format for their users
- FreeBSD/NetBSD/OpenBSD also provide their own binaries
With snaps vs docker/OCI and snaps vs FlatPak vs AppImage emerging as
new variations of the longstanding "deb vs RPM vs something else"
arguments, "Here's a source tarball, y'all have fun now" remains the
most sensible publication approach for relatively low level operating
system components like CPython, while the manylinux ABI definition
provides "usefully broad" compatibility of pre-built wheel files
across a range of Linux distributions.
Cheers, Nick.
P.S. Full disclosure: I do work for Red Hat, but I'd still be opposed to the idea even if the suggestion was to publish our own RPMs or docker/OCI images
-- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
- Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Snap Python for simple distribution across multiple Linux distros
- Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Snap Python for simple distribution across multiple Linux distros
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]