Donald Stufft <donald <at> stufft.io> writes: > I think bundling pip or bundling nothing is the only thing that makes sense. There > actually *is* a PEP however it took a different approach that has been (during the > discussions about it) decided that a different way would be less error prone and > more suitable. So now someone to write a PEP for that *new* way is being sought > out. So it's not so much that a pronouncement was made prior to a PEP being > written, but that a PEP was written, discussed, and a better way was found during > that discussion.
Which specific PEP are you referring to? I'm not aware of any PEP which refers to bundling anything with Python. If whichever PEP it was took a fairly different approach to the one being discussed, and no conclusion could be reached about it, that doesn't mean that PEP 1 shouldn't be followed - just that a new PEP needs to be written, espousing the new approach, and it needs to go through the PEP workflow. For example, PEP 386 was supplanted by PEP 440, because the earlier PEP had some flaws which the later PEP took care to address. The earlier metadata PEPs all built on one another, with PEP 426 being the latest. > As far as I know you're free to make a competing PEP if you'd like. What would be the point, given that the decision has already been made by the packaging BDFL? If someone else had put forward the pip bundling PEP, I would certainly have commented on it like anyone else and participated in the discussions. I'm more concerned that the PEP process is not being followed than I'm concerned about "my particular approach vs. your particular approach vs. his/her particular approach". Regards, Vinay Sajip _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
