On 8/24/2021 4:35 PM, Geoffrey Thomas wrote:
Hmmm, I'm not sure exactly how to phrase that PyPI is not a distro but
Conda is. Both use Python-aware package management tools (pip / conda).
And while Conda is well-known for having non-Python software (R, curl,
etc.), so does PyPI (patchelf, ninja, etc.).
And we expect that Conda will _not_ provide an EXTERNALLY-MANAGED file,
though Homebrew will.
So maybe it's okay to say that technically both PyPI and Conda are
distros, but since they use Python-specific package managers as their
primary package manager, it's okay for them to choose not to implement
EXTERNALLY-MANAGED?
Conda is not a distro, but Anaconda is, as-is conda-forge (both of which
are installed using Conda).
The difference from PyPI is that all the packages have been curated and
produced (packed?) by a single organisation in a consistent build
environment.
Conda itself is not Python-specific, it is just popular for Python
packages. It operates on simple archives that are extracted into a root
directory and already contain all the file system structure needed to
avoid collisions, so it really does benefit distros (as they can handle
the entire layout more easily than many unrelated teams).
Personally, I would expect these distros to specify that packages they
install are "not managed by pip". It's all just static files that they
embed into their packages anyway, so eventually conda-build (or the
specific build definitions, more likely) will generate the marker at
build time.
Hopefully that's some helpful clarification. I haven't looked through
the final PEP yet, but hoping to take a look before the end of the week.
Cheers,
Steve
_______________________________________________
Linux-sig mailing list -- linux-sig@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to linux-sig-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/linux-sig.python.org/
Member address: arch...@mail-archive.com
