On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Brendan Barnwell <brenb...@brenbarn.net> wrote: > On 2017-11-12 05:18, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> >> * the `pip install` option really is nicer looking than `python -m pip >> install`, and it only has actual problems in the presence of multiple >> Python versions and when upgrading pip itself on Windows (plus: lots >> of third party guides recommend it, as do pypi.org project pages) > > Is there any *advantage* to using `pip install` instead of `python > -m install`? If not, could we at least change everything under Python/pip > control (e.g., pip documentation) to never recommend `pip` and always > recommend `python -m pip` instead, and encourage all third-party > documentation to always use `python -m pip` and never use `pip`? Obviously > this isn't a full solution, but in the end there's no way we change external > third-party documentation, which will always eventually become outdated. > Absent that, it seems worthwhile to regularize existing official > documentation.
Can we instead make it so that 'pip' and 'python -m pip' *are* actually equivalent? I know there are all kinds of pathological things that can happen, but it seems like we can drive the frequency of this error down more. What if instead of installing a standard entry point, the pip executable was installed as #!/bin/sh exec python -m pip "$@" on Unix-likes, and a pip.bat with the equivalent contents on Windows? (Bonus: maybe this would fix the problem with upgrading pip on Windows?) -n -- Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
