> On Jan 22, 2016, at 6:04 PM, Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com> wrote:
> On Friday, January 22, 2016 05:50:13 PM Donald Stufft wrote:
> ...
>> We already have an option like this, the —root option which will just append
>> a different prefix to all of the installation paths. So essentially instead
>> of invoking ``python setup.py install —root /tmp/something/`` which is what
>> I think you’re doing now, you’d do ``pip install —root /tmp/something/
>> —no-deps .`` and it’d just work similarly to what you have now, except pip
>> would be responsible for interacting with the Python build system.
> ...
> Why would pip interacting with the Python build system instead of setuptools
> be better?
> Scott K

setuptools *is* the build system right now (or distutils if you’re still using
that). So the benefit to Debian right now would be: We maintain the
distutils/setuptools hacks to make them suck less so you don’t have to!

Longer term, we want to enable people to go hog wild and invent their own
build systems instead of trying to do it all one size fits all with everyone
miserable because it doesn’t solve anyones problems nicely. At that point the
benefit to Debian becomes that instead of having to implement the standard
build tool interface that these tools implement (Which will most likely be
geared towards produces wheels, not towards putting files on disk in an
installed location) Debian can just let us maintain that bit of code too.

Of course, if Debian would prefer to interact directly with these tools, it’s
totally fine to do that. The whole point of us doing this work and trying to
define formats and APIs and not bless implementations is so anyone who wants
to can slot in their own tool in the process instead of being forced to use
some blessed tool.

Donald Stufft
PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Reply via email to