Re: pip for stretch

[Barry Warsaw]

On Nov 28, 2016, at 01:56 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:

>I'm starting to work on pip 9.0.1 but noticed two new dependencies.  appdirs
>1.4.0 we have, but distro 1.0.1 we don't.  It doesn't look like there's an ITP
>for that, so I'll file that bug.

Okay, as soon as python-distro clears new, I'll upload pip 9.0.1.

Cheers,
-Barry


pgpveAufZSqdG.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: pip for stretch

[Barry Warsaw]

On Nov 21, 2016, at 06:37 PM, Donald Stufft wrote:

>As one might expect, I would prefer it if folks got 9.0.1 as quickly as
>possible. In particular the feature that makes it easier for upstreams to
>drop Python 2 support is one that is really only effective when people can
>consider pip 9 a "minimum" version of pip to support. Getting it into the
>hands of folks as quickly as possible would be a big boon to that.

I'm starting to work on pip 9.0.1 but noticed two new dependencies.  appdirs
1.4.0 we have, but distro 1.0.1 we don't.  It doesn't look like there's an ITP
for that, so I'll file that bug.

Cheers,
-Barry


pgpHuORawNqCM.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: pip for stretch

[Hans-Christoph Steiner]

Donald Stufft:
>>
>> On Nov 21, 2016, at 6:33 PM, Barry Warsaw  wrote:
>>
>> I have not started to look at what if anything needs to be done to transition
>> to pip 9, but if you have a strong opinion one way or the other, please weigh
>> in.
>>
> 
> 
> As one might expect, I would prefer it if folks got 9.0.1 as quickly as 
> possible. In particular the feature that makes it easier for upstreams to drop
> Python 2 support is one that is really only effective when people can consider
> pip 9 a "minimum" version of pip to support. Getting it into the hands of 
> folks
> as quickly as possible would be a big boon to that.
> 
> —
> Donald Stufft

I'm with Donald here.  It'll help both the Debian ecosystem to be more
closely aligned with the current tools as well as the Python ecosystem
since it'll help speed up the transition to Python3.  The more people
see the Debian Python packages as a viable option for deployment and
development, the better Python in Debian will be maintained since there
will be more people relying on the packages.

But of course, this decision also depends on how much work it would be.
I don't think pip 9 is an absolute requirement, but I do think its worth
some effort.

.hc

Re: pip for stretch

[Jeremy Stanley]

On 2016-11-21 18:33:48 -0500 (-0500), Barry Warsaw wrote:
[...]
> I have not started to look at what if anything needs to be done to
> transition to pip 9, but if you have a strong opinion one way or
> the other, please weigh in.

The fix to uninstall properly when replacing with an editable
install of the same package is a pretty huge one in my opinion. Ran
into it quite a bit where I'd do an install from unreleased source
(in editable mode because I was hacking on it) of some library, and
that software was a transitive dependency of something in its own
requirements list so had already been installed from an sdist/wheel
without my realizing. This leads to confusingly testing the released
version of the source code because it shows up first in the path
when you import what you think is the code you're editing. Not a fun
way to spend your time.

Granted, I'm mostly running pip on unstable when developing, and I
run it from a bootstrapped virtualenv anyway so don't actually use
the Debian package of it other than to bootstrap my initial venv.
-- 
Jeremy Stanley

Re: pip for stretch

[Donald Stufft]

> 
> On Nov 21, 2016, at 6:33 PM, Barry Warsaw  wrote:
> 
> I have not started to look at what if anything needs to be done to transition
> to pip 9, but if you have a strong opinion one way or the other, please weigh
> in.
> 


As one might expect, I would prefer it if folks got 9.0.1 as quickly as 
possible. In particular the feature that makes it easier for upstreams to drop
Python 2 support is one that is really only effective when people can consider
pip 9 a "minimum" version of pip to support. Getting it into the hands of folks
as quickly as possible would be a big boon to that.

—
Donald Stufft

pip for stretch

[Barry Warsaw]

Now that Stretch development is winding down, and I've been doing some recent
maintenance on pip, I wanted to throw this out there and see if anybody has
strong opinions one way or the other.

I'm considering sticking with pip 8.1.2 for Stretch, even though upstream is
at 9.0.1.

Here's the changelog: https://pip.pypa.io/en/stable/news/

Note the backward incompatibility introduced in 9.0.0, though Donald tells me
that it's not a common use case so unlikely to be a problem.  pip 9 will be
the default version in Python 3.6, but that probably doesn't really matter for
us since python3.6 is in experimental.

pip 9 does include a feature that makes it easier for upstreams to drop Python
2, by allowing them to specify a requires-python parameter.  There's some
better automation features and a few other things.  See the changelog linked
above for details.

I have not started to look at what if anything needs to be done to transition
to pip 9, but if you have a strong opinion one way or the other, please weigh
in.

Cheers,
-Barry


pgpQW38U_yLQf.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature