On Sun, 2 Aug 2020 at 21:34, Bert JW Regeer <xiste...@0x58.com> wrote: > > By splitting it into two different packages you end up with the same > situation that currently plagues psycopg2/psycopg2-binary whereby if you > depend on psycopg2 you can't easily swap in psycopg2-binary and vice-versa as > the two don't satisfy the same dependency.
The psycopg2 wheel or not wheel is the situation you describe, and it's really suboptimal from the point of declaring dependencies: beginners would like to use psycopg2-binary, but projects are advised to depend on psycopg2, so they either don't get the wheel benefit or they end up in a tangle of dependencies, two distributions installing the same files, bad stuff. Offering the C distribution as an opt-in extension would allow projects to depend only on the pure python psycopg3, which would be also the right choice for beginners, and allowing the grown-ups with a compiler to go faster by installing psycopg3-c too, which wouldn't conflict with the basic package. > Number 3 is kind of what sqlalchemy does, and then provide wheels for a huge > variety of platforms to allow people to install the package without needing a > compiler themselves. The difference in performance of the C extension is important enough (15-20x - https://www.varrazzo.com/blog/2020/05/19/a-trip-into-optimisation/) to arguably make or break a deal. If someone wanted the C extension because they need the performance I wouldn't want its installation to fail silently. -- Daniele -- Distutils-SIG mailing list -- distutils-sig@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to distutils-sig-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/distutils-sig.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/distutils-sig@python.org/message/MQNGT25XY3V7UDTKXVOEQ3XABLTEK4DS/
