FWIW we are using quite a bit of the internal api. My plan was to go over this once we cut over to the new warehouse uris. Of note might be the fact that pip-tools is a core dependency we bundle in pipenv and the current maintainer is a pipenv maintainer as well. For our specific case we have made sizeable changes to the dependency resolution stack and bundling allows us to patch freely.
I don’t know that we are a good example though, we are doing significantly more with pip internals than the average project -dan Dan Ryan // pipenv maintainer gh: @techalchemy > On Apr 14, 2018, at 11:24 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 15 April 2018 at 07:31, Donald Stufft <don...@stufft.io> wrote: >> >> On Apr 14, 2018, at 4:57 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.br...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Is the suggestion to use the `_internal` import, or carry a copy of >> the pep425tags code myself, that I have to keep up to date with the >> internal pip copy? That would also involve me copying the `glibc` >> part of the code. I see that the `wheel` package has an old copy of >> that code too, which doesn't deal with manylinux wheels. You >> probably saw that `pip-tools` ended up vendoring the whole of pip9 >> [1]. >> >> The best solution is to figure out what APIs people need, and either add >> them to packaging and have pip consume that as well as anyone else, or make >> a new library for the same. >> >> If that’s unacceptable, vendoring or version pinning is probably the best >> option. > > I think there are going to be at least two steps involved for most > projects affected by the API change: > > 1. The quick fix to add pip 10 compatibility (which is likely a matter > of "copy the code you need into the project that needs it") > 2. The technical debt reduction to reduce code duplication (which is > likely a matter of "add the required APIs to the 'packaging' project") > > Step 2 is the step that the pip internals refactoring is designed to > encourage, as we believe a lot of tool developers were just using > pip's internal APIs rather than filing RFEs and submitting PRs to help > guide the evolution of the stable APIs in packaging in a use-case > driven manner. > > FWIW, `pipenv`'s currently still on "Step 1" at the moment (and has a > lot of internal refactoring of its own ahead of it before it will > really move on to step 2). > > Cheers, > Nick. > > -- > Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
