Hi Sebastian, thanks for your thoughts. Il 15/03/20 22:31, Sebastian M. Ernst ha scritto: > > Well, the bottom line is more efficiently tapping into pypi and conda > packages. QGIS / OSGeo4W pretty much acts as a rather limited Python > distribution. It's missing a lot of interesting scientific packages that > currently see rapid development. Their distribution as part of QGIS / > OSGeo4W would probably go much beyond the scope and resources of the > QGIS project. If, on the other hand, QGIS was "simply" yet another > C++-heavy Python package within a larger ecosystem, let's say Anaconda, > this would add an interesting new perspective. I have been chasing the > idea that QGIS plugins (more specifically their meta data) are lacking a > lot of features of Python wheels or Conda packages. They really can not > carry dependencies (other than dependencies to other plugins, added in > QGIS 3.6 I believe). It's actually officially recommended to make Python > dependencies part of QGIS plugins' distribution files (c & p), which can > be a no-go for a number of good reasons. If you imagine that QGIS > plugins are instead (or additionally) distributed as conda packages > (with all of conda's package management features) while the entire thing > remains manageable through a simple GUI, the QGIS plugin manager, I can > see some interesting new use-cases and possibilities (especially for > non-technical and Windows users). This is more or less the gist of my > thinking.
having a proper way of managing plugin dependencies would be a huge improvement, as this is one of the weakest points of our plugin management. Cheers. -- Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu QGIS.ORG Chair: http://planet.qgis.org/planet/user/28/tag/qgis%20board/ _______________________________________________ QGIS-Developer mailing list [email protected] List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
