We have been attempting to collaborate but there was not a clear path because there are many moving pieces. It is clear that the user experience is important and our primary focus is on providing a consistent UX so that things that work in pip also work in pipenv.
We are directly discussing the opposite of the situation you are asking about. Things are already fragmented and we are all hoping to have a unified set of libraries to work with. This is now an attempt to find a process. I want to point out that this was essentially laid out as the only way forward, since using pip internals isn’t viable and contributing random changes doesn’t help us as a result. Creating libraries based on existing tooling has helped us determine what is possible, where the limitations are, and what a generic implementation might look like. Now that we have a sense of what is possible it is a lot easier to propose changes. So given that we are - discussing a path to refactoring functionality out of pip and into other libraries for consistent behavior across tools - looking at candidates for extraction - forming concrete actions to actually get this underway - already working on some early potential code What is it exactly that you are looking for in continuing down this road of ‘why are these two packaging tools doing different things’? The short answer is that sometimes it’s for no reason, sometimes for a good reason, and sometimes for a bad reason. But is that question meaningful when the conversation is about ‘how do we stop doing different things’ ? Dan Ryan // pipenv maintainer gh: @techalchemy > On Sep 20, 2018, at 1:22 AM, Chris Jerdonek <chris.jerdo...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 8:54 PM, Dan Ryan <d...@danryan.co> wrote: >> I should clarify that we have already implemented a number of these as >> libraries over the last several months (and I am super familiar with pip's >> internals by now and I'm sure TP is getting there as well). More on this >> below >> ... >> We are super cognizant of that aspect as I am pretty sure we are hitting >> this wall in a full (nearly) pip-free reimplementation of all of the pipenv >> internals from the ground up, including wheel building/installation, but we >> basically had to start by calling pip directly, then slowly reimplement each >> aspect of the underlying logic using various elements in distlib/setuptools >> or rebuilding those. > > Is the hope or game plan then for pipenv not to have to depend on pip? This > is partly what I was trying to learn in my email to this list a month ago (on > Aug. 20, with subject: "pipenv and pip"): > https://mail.python.org/mm3/archives/list/distutils-sig@python.org/thread/2QECNWSHNEW7UBB24M2K5BISYJY7GMZF/ > > Based on the replies, I wasn't getting that impression at the time (though I > don't remember getting a clear answer), but maybe things have changed since > then. > > It should certainly be a lot easier for pipenv to move fast since there is no > legacy base of users to maintain compatibility with. However, I worry about > the fracturing this will cause. In creating these libraries, from the pip > tracker it doesn't look like any effort is going into refactoring pip to make > use of them. This relates to the point I made earlier today about how there > won't be an easy way to cut pip over to using a new library unless an effort > is made from the beginning. Thus, it's looking like things could be on track > to split the user and maintainer base in two, with pip bearing the legacy > burden and perhaps not seeing the improvements. Are we okay with that future? > > --Chris > > >> Since you mentioned following along, here's what we're working on right now: >> >> https://github.com/sarugaku/requirementslib -- abstraction layer for parsing >> and converting various requirements formats >> (pipfile/requirements.txt/command line/InstallRequirement) and moving >> between all of them >> https://github.com/sarugaku/resolvelib -- directed acyclic graph library for >> handling dependency resolution (not yet being used in pipenv) >> https://github.com/sarugaku/passa -- dependency resolver/installer/pipfile >> manager (bulk of the logic we have been talking about is in here right now) >> -- I think we will probably split this back out into multiple other smaller >> libraries or something based on the discussion >> https://github.com/sarugaku/plette -- this is a rewrite of pipfile with some >> additional logic / validation >> https://github.com/sarugaku/shellingham -- this is a shell detection library >> made up of some tooling we built in pipenv for environment detection >> https://github.com/sarugaku/pythonfinder -- this is a library for finding >> python (pep 514 compliant) by version and for finding any other executables >> (cross platform) >> https://github.com/sarugaku/virtenv -- python api for virtualenv creation >> >> Happy to provide access or take advice as needed on any of those. Thanks >> all for the receptiveness and collaboration >> >> Dan Ryan >> gh: @techalchemy // e: d...@danryan.co >> >> From: Donald Stufft [mailto:don...@stufft.io] >> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2018 1:52 PM >> To: Tzu-ping Chung >> Cc: Distutils >> Subject: [Distutils] Re: Distlib vs Packaging (Was: disable building wheel >> for a package) >> >> My general recommendation if you want a Python implementation/interface for >> something pip does, is: >> >> - Open an issue on the pip repository to document your intent and to make >> sure that there is nobody there who is against having that functionality >> split out. This might also give a chance for people with familiarity in that >> API to mention pain points that you can solve in a new API. We can also >> probably give you a good sense if the thing you want in a library is >> something that probably has multiple things that are dependent on getting >> split out first (for instance, if you said you wanted a library for >> installing wheels, we'd probably tell you that there is a dependency on PEP >> 425 tags, pip locations, maybe other that need resolved first) and also >> whether this is something that should have a PEP first or not. Getting some >> rough agreement on the plan to split X thing out before you start is overall >> a good thing. >> >> - Create or update a PEP if required, and get it into the provisional state. >> >> - Make the library, either as a PR to packaging or as it's own independent >> library. If there are questions that come up while creating that library/PR >> that have to do with specific pip behaviors, go back to that original issue >> and ask for clarification etc. Ideally at some point you'll open a PR on pip >> that uses the new library (my suggestion is to not bundle the library in the >> initial PR, and just import it normally so that the PR diff doesn't include >> the full bundled library until there's agreement on it). If there's another >> tool (pipenv, whatever) that is looking to use that same functionality, open >> a WIP PR there too that switches it to using that. Use feedback and what you >> learn from trying to integrate in those libraries to influence back the >> design of the API itself. >> >> Creating a PEP and creating the library and the PRs can happen in parallel, >> but at least for pip if something deserves a PEP, we're not going to merge a >> PR until that PEP is generally agreed on. However it can be supremely useful >> to have them all going at the same time, because you run into things that >> you didn't really notice until you went to actually implement it. >> >> My other big suggestion would be to e careful about how much you bite off at >> one time. Pip's internal code base is not the greatest, so pulling out >> smaller chunks at a time rather than trying to start right off pulling out a >> big topic is more likely to meet with success. Be cognizant of what the >> dependencies are for the feature you want to implement, because if it has >> dependencies, you'll need to pull them out first before you can pull it out >> OR you'll need to design the API to invert those dependencies so they get >> passed in instead. >> >> I personally would be happy to at a minimum participate on any issue where >> someone was trying to split out some functionality from pip into a re-usable >> library if not follow the develop of that library directly to help guide it >> more closely. My hope for pip is that it ends up being the glue around a >> bunch of these libraries, and that it doesn't implement most of the stuff >> itself anymore. >> -- >> Distutils-SIG mailing list -- distutils-sig@python.org >> To unsubscribe send an email to distutils-sig-le...@python.org >> https://mail.python.org/mm3/mailman3/lists/distutils-sig.python.org/ >> Message archived at >> https://mail.python.org/mm3/archives/list/distutils-sig@python.org/message/IQVZVVWX2BLEP6D4WQMKNXZHBF2NZINU/ >
-- Distutils-SIG mailing list -- distutils-sig@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to distutils-sig-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mm3/mailman3/lists/distutils-sig.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/mm3/archives/list/distutils-sig@python.org/message/TWPILKETHEG3NFLIINFBWC7VTTKQ6BNJ/
