Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 11:16 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > > > If we waved our hands and were able to magically make Python package > >> management perfect, what would that look like? > > > > well, I think the command would be: > > > > python install package_name > > > > I know

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On 13 November 2015 at 03:08, Brett Cannon wrote: > > > On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 at 04:06 Paul Moore wrote: >> >> On 11 November 2015 at 06:35, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> > Windows Python 2 installations require manual PATH modifications >> >

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 6:09 PM, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal wrote: > > If we waved our hands and were able to magically make Python package >> management perfect, what would that look like? > > well, I think the command would be: > > python install package_name > > I know

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

> If we waved our hands and were able to magically make Python package > management perfect, what would that look like? well, I think the command would be: python install package_name I know there are good reasons to keep package installer development out of core, but if have ensurepip-- we

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 at 04:06 Paul Moore wrote: > On 11 November 2015 at 06:35, Nick Coghlan wrote: > > Windows Python 2 installations require manual PATH modifications > > regardless, but it's more common for people to know how to make > > "python -m pip

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On 11 November 2015 at 06:35, Nick Coghlan wrote: > > Longer term, it may even make sense to take the "python" command on > *nix systems in that direction, or, at the very least, make "py" a > cross-platform invocation technique: >

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On November 11, 2015 at 9:34:41 AM, Nick Coghlan (ncogh...@gmail.com) wrote: > On 11 November 2015 at 15:08, Wayne Werner wrote: > > > > With all of the weirdness involved, it makes me wonder - could there be a > > better way? If we waved our hands and were able to magically make Python > >

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On 11 November 2015 at 14:48, Donald Stufft wrote: > Right. I think PEP 426 fell into the same trap that distutils2 fell into. It > attempted to boil the ocean in one step and the longer it went on the more > aspirational stuff got layered onto it because it was being held up

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On 11 November 2015 at 06:35, Nick Coghlan wrote: > Windows Python 2 installations require manual PATH modifications > regardless, but it's more common for people to know how to make > "python -m pip install X" work, than it is for them to remember to > also add the "Scripts"

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On 11 November 2015 at 15:08, Wayne Werner wrote: > > With all of the weirdness involved, it makes me wonder - could there be a > better way? If we waved our hands and were able to magically make Python > package management perfect, what would that look like? > > Would

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On Nov 10, 2015 11:09 PM, "Wayne Werner" wrote: > > > With all of the weirdness involved, it makes me wonder - could there be a better way? If we waved our hands and were able to magically make Python package management perfect, what would that look like? > > Would that

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On 12 November 2015 at 03:48, Donald Stufft wrote: ... > Right. I think PEP 426 fell into the same trap that distutils2 fell into. It > attempted to boil the ocean in one step and the longer it went on the more > aspirational stuff got layered onto it because it was being held

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Chris Barker wrote: > pip is a special case -- for MOST python command line tools, the user does > not care which python it is running with -- if it works, it works. > > the failure case we are trying to address here is when "pip install"

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

> In this situation, if pip's default for finding the python environment > were to search the path for 'python' instead of using sys.executable, One trick here -- PATH may not be the same everywhere. For instance, on OS-X, the environment GUI programs get is entirely independent of the shell. So,

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 3:29 PM, James Bennett wrote: > On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Chris Barker wrote: >> >> pip is a special case -- for MOST python command line tools, the user does >> not care which python it is running with -- if it works,

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On 10 November 2015 at 09:24, Chris Barker wrote: > As it happens, I am in the middle of a intro class that's using python3.4 or > 3.5 right now -- and I am telling everyone to do: > > python3 -m pip install > > Yes, plain old "pip install" is nicer, but only a little bit,

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

With all of the weirdness involved, it makes me wonder - could there be a better way? If we waved our hands and were able to magically make Python package management perfect, what would that look like? Would that kind of discussion even be valuable? On Tue, Nov 10, 2015, 6:22 PM Nathaniel Smith

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On November 9, 2015 at 6:17:41 AM, Oscar Benjamin (oscar.j.benja...@gmail.com) wrote: > On 9 November 2015 at 10:44, Wolfgang Maier > wrote: > > > > Something I miss in all the discussions taking place here is the fact that > > python -m pip is the officially documented way of invoking pip at > >

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 12:01:37 + Paul Moore wrote: > > The one thing that *is* special about pip is that it actually > *modifies* the Python installation it runs under. Fortunately, though, if you are running the system pip without having root privileges activated, it will

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 6:01 AM, Paul Moore wrote: > > The one thing that *is* special about pip is that it actually > *modifies* the Python installation it runs under. So running pip with > the "wrong" Python makes persistent changes somewhere you weren't > expecting.

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On November 9, 2015 at 8:26:50 AM, Paul Moore (p.f.mo...@gmail.com) wrote: > On 9 November 2015 at 12:46, Wayne Werner wrote: > > My experience(s) with the latest IPython is that it's freaking magic - in > > a good way :) > > Nice :-) Maybe pip could learn something useful from how the IPython >

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On November 9, 2015 at 7:01:57 AM, Paul Moore (p.f.mo...@gmail.com) wrote: > > This is pretty much why I said earlier that this isn't really a pip > issue. It applies just as much to Django, to pydoc, etc. > > I'm concerned that what is happening at the moment is that every > project

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On 9 November 2015 at 12:46, Wayne Werner wrote: > My experience(s) with the latest IPython is that it's freaking magic - in > a good way :) Nice :-) Maybe pip could learn something useful from how the IPython guys do that. Paul

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 5:20 PM, Ionel Cristian Mărieș wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 3:05 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> >> So apparently if you use 'python -m venv' to create a new *venv* while >> inside a *virtualenv*, then it seems to complete

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On 9 November 2015 at 10:44, Wolfgang Maier wrote: > > Something I miss in all the discussions taking place here is the fact that > python -m pip is the officially documented way of invoking pip at >

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On Sunday, November 8, 2015, Ben Finney wrote: > > +1. Addressing this by insisting on ‘python -m foo’ is not a solution. > It's a plaster over a problem that will remain until the underlying > conflict is resolved. > > That's not to say PyPA should ignore the issue,

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On 09.11.2015 02:13, Donald Stufft wrote: On November 5, 2015 at 4:08:56 PM, Donald Stufft (don...@stufft.io) wrote: Another possible option is to modify pip so that instead of installing into site-packages we instead create an "executable zip file" which is a simple zip file that has all of

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 3:27 AM, James Bennett wrote: > Python scripts directly and without having to do hackery with > supporting/requiring 'python -m' or similar is too useful and commonly > used. So faced with either (essentially) forcing a trend of every > command-line

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

wow! a really long thread here. Trying not to duplicate too much. I am coming primarily from the perspective of someone that teaches python to beginners (I'm also a user and package developer, but I, myself, can deal with any of these options...) My perspective as a user of pip, but not a

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 3:53 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > Well, the problem is that "python -m pip" isn't any better. If you > don't know what the current "pip" is, then chances are you don't know > what the current "python" is, either. > sure you do (well, maybe not, but all

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On 9 November 2015 at 11:27, James Bennett wrote: > I agree with this, and with the feeling that we're just kicking the failure > down the line: if someone doesn't know what Python is being invoked by > 'pip', they likely will have the same problem with other tools, too,

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:16:56 + Oscar Benjamin wrote: > On 9 November 2015 at 10:44, Wolfgang Maier > wrote: > > > > Something I miss in all the discussions taking place here is the fact that > > python -m pip is the

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Chris Barker wrote: > On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 3:53 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: >> >> Well, the problem is that "python -m pip" isn't any better. If you >> don't know what the current "pip" is, then chances are you don't

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On November 9, 2015 at 8:05:29 PM, Nathaniel Smith (n...@pobox.com) wrote: > > This is "just a bug", but it seems fair to assume that there will > continue to exist some weird corner-case bugs in Python > packaging/distribution/environment-creation for a while > yet… Note: I think my PoC will

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 8:01 AM, Ionel Cristian Mărieș wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 12:24 AM, Donald Stufft wrote: >> >> Well, it’s not really a launcher no, but you’d do ``pip -p python2 install >> foo`` or something like that. It’s the same UI. Having

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 7:52 PM, Glyph Lefkowitz wrote: > > If you invoke 'pip[X.Y]' and it matches 'python -m pip' in your current > virtualenv, don't say anything; similarly if you invoke 'python -m pip' and > 'which pip' matches. But if there's a mismatch, pip can

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 3:05 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > So apparently if you use 'python -m venv' to create a new *venv* while > inside a *virtualenv*, then it seems to complete successfully but > leaves you with a venv that doesn't contain pip. At least on my > machine

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On Sat, Nov 7, 2015, 5:41 PM Paul Moore wrote: On 7 November 2015 at 22:21, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > The actual question is: which problem are you trying to solve *that > current users are actually experiencing*? Typically, people using "pip" to install

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 19:37:03 -0500 Donald Stufft wrote: > In fact, the pyvenv script has been deprecated and is going to be > removed in Python 3.8 in favor of `python -m venv` for similar > reasons that I've described here. That's not an argument, since the decision was taken

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 12:24 AM, Donald Stufft wrote: > Well, it’s not really a launcher no, but you’d do ``pip -p python2 install > foo`` or something like that. It’s the same UI. Having just a “launcher” I > think is actually more confusing (and we already had that in the

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On 8 November 2015 at 00:37, Donald Stufft wrote: > This probably does also affect pydoc but I would suggest that more people are > invoking pip in various “weird” situation than are invoking pydoc. I know > personally I’ve *never* invoked pydoc. In fact, the pyvenv script has

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On November 8, 2015 at 9:13:48 AM, Antoine Pitrou (solip...@pitrou.net) wrote: > On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 19:37:03 -0500 > Donald Stufft wrote: > > In fact, the pyvenv script has been deprecated and is going to be > > removed in Python 3.8 in favor of `python -m venv` for similar > > reasons that I've

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

Paul Moore writes: > Unfortunately, pip is orders of magnitude more frequently used than > the other commands that suffer from this problem, so it *feels* like a > pip issue. But it isn't really, it's either a Python issue or an OS > issue, depending on how you view it. +1.

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On 05.11.2015 22:08, Donald Stufft wrote: * Having pip need to be installed into each Python means you end up with a bunch of independent pip installations which all need to be independently updated. We've made this better by having recent pips warn you if you're not on the latest

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On November 5, 2015 at 4:08:56 PM, Donald Stufft (don...@stufft.io) wrote: > > Another possible option is to modify pip so that instead of installing into > site-packages we instead create an "executable zip file" which is a simple zip > file that has all of pip inside of it and a top level

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

The actual question is: which problem are you trying to solve *that current users are actually experiencing*? I'm -1 on removing the "pip" command. "python -m pip" is frankly not a reasonable subtitution if we want to *promote* pip. > * The above gets *really* confusing when ``pipX`` or

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On 7 November 2015 at 22:21, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > The actual question is: which problem are you trying to solve *that > current users are actually experiencing*? Typically, people using "pip" to install stuff, and finding it gets installed into the "wrong" Python

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 19:16:55 -0500 Donald Stufft wrote: > > The largest problem comes when ``python`` and ``pip`` disagree about which > Python is being invoked. As a said, this is a problem for package managers and distributions. "pip" isn't the only affected command, e.g.

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

I found I really did typically have that problem that Paul describes pretty often until I switched to using predominantly conda. I would always make symlinks for pip2 and pip3 (and maybe for pip3.3 vs. pip3.4) to make sure things went the right places. I suppose this problem was largely because

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On November 7, 2015 at 7:12:59 PM, Antoine Pitrou (solip...@pitrou.net) wrote: > On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 23:41:25 + > Paul Moore wrote: > > On 7 November 2015 at 22:21, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > > The actual question is: which problem are you trying to solve *that > > > current users are actually

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 23:41:25 + Paul Moore wrote: > On 7 November 2015 at 22:21, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > The actual question is: which problem are you trying to solve *that > > current users are actually experiencing*? > > Typically, people using

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On November 7, 2015 at 7:22:23 PM, Antoine Pitrou (solip...@pitrou.net) wrote: > On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 19:16:55 -0500 > Donald Stufft wrote: > > > > The largest problem comes when ``python`` and ``pip`` disagree about which > > Python > is being invoked. > > As a said, this is a problem for

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

> Typically, people using "pip" to install stuff, and finding it gets > installed into the "wrong" Python installation (i.e., not the one they > expected). I'm not clear myself on how this happens, but it seems to > be common on some Linux distros (and I think on OSX as well) where > system and

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:08 PM, Donald Stufft wrote: > Another possible option is to modify pip so that instead of installing into > site-packages we instead create an "executable zip file" which is a simple zip > file that has all of pip inside of it and a top level

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On Nov 7, 2015 7:30 PM, "Nathaniel Smith" wrote: > alternative approach would be to totally decouple the host python used > to execute pip from the target python that pip acts upon, on the > grounds that these are logically distinct things. (As a thought > experiment you can even

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 4:52 AM, Glyph Lefkowitz wrote: > > Rather than trying to figure out what the "right" way for users to invoke > `pip´ to begin with is, why not just have Pip start providing more > *information* about potential problems when you invoke it? > > If

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On 6 November 2015 at 03:52, Glyph Lefkowitz wrote: > If you invoke 'pip[X.Y]' and it matches 'python -m pip' in your current > virtualenv, don't say anything; similarly if you invoke 'python -m pip' and > 'which pip' matches. But if there's a mismatch, pip can print

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On 5 November 2015 at 22:59, Donald Stufft wrote: > I think we could integrate with py on Windows somehow so that we use the same > lookup semantics as py does. I don't know enough about Windows and py.exe to > know what exactly those are. Hmm, I'm reluctant to get into

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Ionel Cristian Mărieș wrote: > ​Why not consider having a "pip" launcher?​ Seems the obvious thing to me > - python has the "py" launcher on windows and it works great! > > Eg: "pip -3" to launch pip using python3, "pip -3.5" to launch pip

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On Nov 6, 2015 5:39 AM, "Paul Moore" wrote: > > On 6 November 2015 at 12:10, Donald Stufft wrote: > > Doesn’t py.exe just look at some ini files and environment variables to decide what to invoke? I’m not sure why we couldn’t just replicate that behavior.

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On 06/11/2015 14:46, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Nov 6, 2015 5:39 AM, "Paul Moore" > wrote: >> >> On 6 November 2015 at 12:10, Donald Stufft > wrote: >> > Doesn’t py.exe just look at some ini files and

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 02:04:38PM +1300, Robert Collins wrote: > On 6 November 2015 at 10:08, Donald Stufft wrote: > > * It's more to type, 10 more characters on *nix and 6 more characters on > > Windows which makes it more akward and annoying to use. This is > >

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On 6 November 2015 at 14:56, Tim Golden wrote: >> One option would be to add a "py -which" mode that just does the >> configuration lookup and then prints the path to the real python >> executable. This would add the cost of one subprocess startup per pip, >> but not 6? > >

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On 11/05/2015 10:08 PM, Donald Stufft wrote: * There is a lot of documentation out there in many projects that tell people to use ``pip install ...``, the long tail on getting people moved to this will be very long. The deprecation period will probably have to be long, but the current

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On 6 November 2015 at 12:10, Donald Stufft wrote: > Doesn’t py.exe just look at some ini files and environment variables to > decide what to invoke? I’m not sure why we couldn’t just replicate that > behavior. Is there something that py.exe does that we can’t also do in

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 11:08 PM, Donald Stufft wrote: > Currently pip installs a number of commands like ``pip``, ``pipX`` and > ``pipX.Y`` where the X and X.Y corresponds to the version of Python that > pip > is installed into. Pip installs into whatever Python is currently >

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

> On Nov 6, 2015, at 1:33 PM, Ionel Cristian Mărieș wrote: > > >> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 11:08 PM, Donald Stufft wrote: >> Currently pip installs a number of commands like ``pip``, ``pipX`` and >> ``pipX.Y`` where the X and X.Y corresponds to the version

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 11:13 PM, Donald Stufft wrote: > Eg: "pip -3" to launch pip using python3, "pip -3.5" to launch pip using > python3.5 - just like the "py" > > > Isn't this basically what the third option is? Just the launcher is also > the entire program. > ​If you

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On November 6, 2015 at 4:59:39 PM, Ionel Cristian Mărieș (cont...@ionelmc.ro) wrote: > On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 11:13 PM, Donald Stufft wrote: > > > Eg: "pip -3" to launch pip using python3, "pip -3.5" to launch pip using > > python3.5 - just like the "py" > > > > > > Isn't this basically what

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

> On Nov 5, 2015, at 5:41 PM, Paul Moore wrote: > >> On 5 November 2015 at 21:08, Donald Stufft wrote: >> Thoughts? > > The executable zip solution is in principle the best long-term > solution. But the breakage is major, and it pretty much permanently >

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On 5 November 2015 at 21:08, Donald Stufft wrote: > Thoughts? The executable zip solution is in principle the best long-term solution. But the breakage is major, and it pretty much permanently cuts off any option to support use of pip as a library. That's probably OK, but we

[Distutils] The future of invoking pip

There is currently a semi related set of problems that I'd really like to figure out an answer too so we can begin to work on a migration path and close these out. This is dealing with a fairly fundamental aspect of pip so I'm bringing it up here to try and get wider discussion than the issue

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On Nov 05, 2015, at 04:08 PM, Donald Stufft wrote: >One benefit of the third option is that we can remove the need to directly >copy the bundled libraries into the pip source code and we can install just >bundle it inside the built zip file. This shouldn't be a problem from Debian's p.o.v. if we

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On November 5, 2015 at 5:06:07 PM, Barry Warsaw (ba...@python.org) wrote: > On Nov 05, 2015, at 04:08 PM, Donald Stufft wrote: > > >One benefit of the third option is that we can remove the need to directly > >copy the bundled libraries into the pip source code and we can install just > >bundle

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On 6 November 2015 at 10:08, Donald Stufft wrote: ... > One possible solution to the above problems is to try and move away from using > ``pip``, ``pipX`` and ``pipX.Y`` and instead push people (and possibly > deprecate ``pip`` ) towards using ``python -m pip`` instead. This

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On November 5, 2015 at 8:04:41 PM, Robert Collins (robe...@robertcollins.net) wrote: > On 6 November 2015 at 10:08, Donald Stufft wrote: > ... > > One possible solution to the above problems is to try and move away from > > using > > ``pip``, ``pipX`` and ``pipX.Y`` and instead push people (and

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

On 6 November 2015 at 15:49, Glyph Lefkowitz wrote: > > On Nov 5, 2015, at 5:04 PM, Robert Collins > wrote: > > cat > /usr/bin/pip << EOF > python -m pip $@ > EOF > > Seriously - isn't the above entirely sufficient? > > > Since I don't think

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

> On Nov 5, 2015, at 6:36 PM, Donald Stufft wrote: > > I’m not really sure what the right answer is for something where the > particular version of Python you’re invoking it with (and that you’re > actually using Python) is important. python -m makes a lot of sense in that >

Re: [Distutils] The future of invoking pip

> On Nov 5, 2015, at 7:34 PM, Robert Collins wrote: > > Why not? (Ignore the language I wrote my pseudocode in, an actual > thing would be a Python script that install would turn into a .exe) It was not clear, in the example that you gave, that I was supposed to