On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Donald Stufft <don...@stufft.io> wrote:
> > On Aug 21, 2016, at 12:19 PM, Jim Fulton <j...@jimfulton.info> wrote: > > I'm open to shelling out, but pessimistic that it will turn out well. I > started with that approach initially with easy_install and it fell apart > quickly. But when we get into it... who knows? > > > > Shelling out is currently the only exposed “API” that pip has, we’re not > opposed to adding extra APIs though. Our current approach has been to wait > and see for people to come out with specific use cases they have for an API > and then work together to figure out what API we can create that satisfies > that. Thus far we’ve accomplished this by creating new libraries that > aren’t pip and moving functionality out of pip (and setuptools) and into > those libraries, and then making pip/setuptools consume those. This has > generally worked pretty well I think, as it’s easier to be careful not to > accidentally expose some terrible internal details of pip as public API > when it’s a new, carefully designed thing, and we can make working with > those libraries better than it is to simply expose some part of pip. We > generally pair this along with defining things in PEPs so that these new > libraries don’t become the new distutils/setuptools/pip (e.g., > implementation defined standards) which should ideally allow anyone to > create a from scratch implementation and have it interopt just fine. > Sounds reasonable. (I'd seen similar statements before, which I'd alluded to in another message.) Thanks. Jim -- Jim Fulton http://jimfulton.info
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
