On Sep 27, 2013, at 4:09 PM, Terry Reedy <tjre...@udel.edu> wrote: > On 9/27/2013 3:10 PM, Donald Stufft wrote: >> >> On Sep 27, 2013, at 2:50 PM, Terry Reedy <tjre...@udel.edu> wrote: >> >>> I add: for 2.7/3.3, there is consequently no need for _ensurepip to be in >>> /Lib after installation, even if temporarily added*. If it is not there, >>> there is no change the the stdlib, and hence no violation of the 'no new >>> features' policy. The optional installation of pip is not a change to >>> Python itself. >> >> This sounds like a really bad idea to me. > > Why would you think that an idea aimed at ending an argument blocking your > proposal is bad. This seems like a really bad response to me.
Because I think it's a fundamentally bad idea. > >> You're going to end up with a different stdlib not only by minor release, >> but by if they installed through an installer or not. > > The current proposal is to add a new module to the stdlib in a bugfix > release, which looks like a violation of current policy. We agree that that > end result of pip installed would be good. We are arguing over whether adding > '_' to the name makes it not a violation or whether the good outweighs the > bad of a violation. I claim that the arguement is not necessary and can be > ended by not making the addition or by hiding it. > > I presume your objection refers to the fact that one can clone the repository > and compile Python on Windows, albeit with some difficulty. My three > responses: > > 1. I do not consider the the result to be 'installed Python', at least not as > I have used the project file. > > 2. The ratio of people building Python on Windows to those downloading and > running an installer is so close to 0 that it can be ignored. People who > build Python on Windows are not typical Python beginners. > > 3. If you do not agree with 1 and 2 and object to _ensurepip being in /Lib in > such limited circumstances, then either put it in /Tools/scripts or do not > use it at all. I already said that the 2.7/3.3 Windows installer maker > (Martin) should decide whether to even use it. > > 4. The argument for including _ensurepip somewhere in the repository it that > people who *do* build python.exe could then use it to install pip the first > time. /Tools/scripts would be sufficient for this. > > 5. The result of not having /Lib/_ensurepip in installed Python would, in any > case, be a lessor violation of the policy. If it lives in the source tree how are you going to provent it from existing when someone installs on Linux? OSX? One of the BSDs? It seems to me your proposal is to add the _ensurepip module… except when they install it via Windows installer. ----------------- Donald Stufft PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
