Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #16250 > unrolled thread

sick of distribute, setup, and all the rest...

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

Contents

  sick of distribute, setup, and all the rest... kj <no.email@please.post> - 2011-11-26 13:40 +0000
    Re: sick of distribute, setup, and all the rest... Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-11-26 14:22 +0000
      Re: sick of distribute, setup, and all the rest... "Albert W. Hopkins" <marduk@letterboxes.org> - 2011-11-26 09:51 -0500
    Re: sick of distribute, setup, and all the rest... rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2011-11-26 09:28 -0800
      Re: sick of distribute, setup, and all the rest... Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2011-11-26 09:46 -0800
      Re: sick of distribute, setup, and all the rest... Matt Joiner <anacrolix@gmail.com> - 2011-11-27 23:54 +1100
      Re: sick of distribute, setup, and all the rest... alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> - 2011-11-27 20:37 -0800
        Re: sick of distribute, setup, and all the rest... rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2011-11-27 23:18 -0800
          Re: sick of distribute, setup, and all the rest... Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-11-28 11:42 +0000
            Re: sick of distribute, setup, and all the rest... rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2011-11-28 05:14 -0800
              Re: sick of distribute, setup, and all the rest... Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-11-28 14:04 +0000
              Re: sick of distribute, setup, and all the rest... Andreas Perstinger <andreas.perstinger@gmx.net> - 2011-11-28 15:23 +0100

#16250 — sick of distribute, setup, and all the rest...

it's an all-out disgrace.

when is python going to get a decent module distribution system???

and don't tell me to do it myself: it's clear that the sorry
situation we have now is precisely that too many programmers without
the requisite expertise or policy-making authority have decided to
pitch in.  This is something for GvR and his top Python core library
team to do, because the problems are as much policy and institutional
ones as they are technical (programming) ones.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#16251

On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 13:40:28 +0000, kj wrote:

> it's an all-out disgrace.
> 
> when is python going to get a decent module distribution system???

Python 4.3, scheduled for March 2038. It's been ready for a few years 
now, and a small secret coterie of privileged developers have been using 
it for their own in-house projects since version 2.1, but it was decided 
not to release it to the general public, because they'll just bitch and 
moan that it's a disgrace without actually explaining why they think so, 
or volunteering to help build a better system.



-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16252

On Sat, 2011-11-26 at 14:22 +0000, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > when is python going to get a decent module distribution system???
> 
> Python 4.3, scheduled for March 2038. It's been ready for a few years 
> now, and a small secret coterie of privileged developers have been
> using 
> it for their own in-house projects since version 2.1, but it was
> decided 
> not to release it to the general public, because they'll just bitch
> and 
> moan that it's a disgrace without actually explaining why they think
> so, 
> or volunteering to help build a better system.
> 
> 
I suspected that all along!
> 
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16255

On Nov 26, 6:40 pm, kj <no.em...@please.post> wrote:
> it's an all-out disgrace.
>
> when is python going to get a decent module distribution system???
>
> and don't tell me to do it myself: it's clear that the sorry
> situation we have now is precisely that too many programmers without
> the requisite expertise or policy-making authority have decided to
> pitch in.  This is something for GvR and his top Python core library
> team to do, because the problems are as much policy and institutional
> ones as they are technical (programming) ones.

I second this.

The only thing I disagree about is that GvR is 'top' enough to handle
this.
For example on my debian box my python system is a mishmash of debian-
apt-packages,
eggs, and hand-installed stuff.  [I believe I tried something like
pypi and did not succeed -- dont exactly remember]
So for systems like mine python and apt need to talk courteously to
each other -- not possible for the likes of u&me; hard even for the
likes of GvR.

Frankly, this is not great but could be much worse.  Some years ago
when I worked with Ruby on Rails the rails that came from debian was
an travesty.  After some suffering I gathered that the optimal
diplomacy was:
- ruby from apt
- gem hand installed
- rails from gem

While Ive never seen anything as ridiculous as the debian-rails in the
python world, its still always a hobson choice:  use a deb package
that will cleanly install, deinstall, upgrade etc but is out of date
or use a fresh and shiny egg that messes up the system.

Haskell's cabal/hackage system is just as much a mess
http://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/f3lh5/haskells_own_dll_hell/

In short the mess arises from this that each of these languages comes
up with its own package management system, neglecting the fact that
the language invariably exists in a larger ecosystem

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16257

On Nov 26, 11:28 am, rusi <rustompm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 6:40 pm, kj <no.em...@please.post> wrote:
> The only thing I disagree about is that GvR is 'top' enough to handle
> this.

For a concrete example of how uninterested Mr. Van Rossum has become,
take a look at the gawd awful state of Tkinter and especially IDLE.
Whist I applaud GvR's initial good will attempts when creating these
modules, i am simultaneously ashamed of their current bit-rot states.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16286

Agreed. I recently gave Haskell a go, and it was remarkable how
similar the package management is to Python's.

How well does the new "packaging" (set for release in Python 3.3?)
module deal with the problems?

With a better package management system, the half of the standard
library that nobody uses can be unceremoniously dumped, and their more
recent upstream versions used correctly. Even distutils itself is
"obsolete", the first recommendation people give is to replace it with
distribute and/or pip.

On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 4:28 AM, rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 6:40 pm, kj <no.em...@please.post> wrote:
>> it's an all-out disgrace.
>>
>> when is python going to get a decent module distribution system???
>>
>> and don't tell me to do it myself: it's clear that the sorry
>> situation we have now is precisely that too many programmers without
>> the requisite expertise or policy-making authority have decided to
>> pitch in.  This is something for GvR and his top Python core library
>> team to do, because the problems are as much policy and institutional
>> ones as they are technical (programming) ones.
>
> I second this.
>
> The only thing I disagree about is that GvR is 'top' enough to handle
> this.
> For example on my debian box my python system is a mishmash of debian-
> apt-packages,
> eggs, and hand-installed stuff.  [I believe I tried something like
> pypi and did not succeed -- dont exactly remember]
> So for systems like mine python and apt need to talk courteously to
> each other -- not possible for the likes of u&me; hard even for the
> likes of GvR.
>
> Frankly, this is not great but could be much worse.  Some years ago
> when I worked with Ruby on Rails the rails that came from debian was
> an travesty.  After some suffering I gathered that the optimal
> diplomacy was:
> - ruby from apt
> - gem hand installed
> - rails from gem
>
> While Ive never seen anything as ridiculous as the debian-rails in the
> python world, its still always a hobson choice:  use a deb package
> that will cleanly install, deinstall, upgrade etc but is out of date
> or use a fresh and shiny egg that messes up the system.
>
> Haskell's cabal/hackage system is just as much a mess
> http://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/f3lh5/haskells_own_dll_hell/
>
> In short the mess arises from this that each of these languages comes
> up with its own package management system, neglecting the fact that
> the language invariably exists in a larger ecosystem
> --
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16310

rusi <rustompm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> While Ive never seen anything as ridiculous as the debian-rails in the
> python world, its still always a hobson choice:  use a deb package
> that will cleanly install, deinstall, upgrade etc but is out of date
> or use a fresh and shiny egg that messes up the system.

The only time I use the OS package manager to install a Python library
is if some other application requires it as a dependency.

If you're not making the distinction between your system install of
Python and your development install, you're really inviting a whole
world of pain and confusion on yourself.

With that approach in mind, I've never had any real issues using pip,
virtualenv etc for managing my development environment.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16311

On Nov 28, 9:37 am, alex23 <wuwe...@gmail.com> wrote:

> With that approach in mind, I've never had any real issues using pip,
> virtualenv etc for managing my development environment.

Yes that is in a way my point also: we discuss (things like) pip,
virtualenv etc too little.

Try working out the ratio of the number of helps/tutorials on
functions/lists/types/classes to those on these extra-linguistic
features needed for environment/build/deployment/versioning and you
can see the skewness of focus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16318

On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 23:18:15 -0800, rusi wrote:

> On Nov 28, 9:37 am, alex23 <wuwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> With that approach in mind, I've never had any real issues using pip,
>> virtualenv etc for managing my development environment.
> 
> Yes that is in a way my point also: we discuss (things like) pip,
> virtualenv etc too little.

I don't know about that. I think we discuss things like pip, etc. exactly 
the right amount.


> Try working out the ratio of the number of helps/tutorials on
> functions/lists/types/classes to those on these extra-linguistic
> features needed for environment/build/deployment/versioning and you can
> see the skewness of focus

We don't chase people down on the street and lecture them about the 
problems we think they are having, we answer questions about ACTUAL 
problems that they have experienced and asking about. If there are 10 or 
100 times more answers about (say) classes than about (say) pip, that is 
because there are 10 or 100 times as many questions about classes.

Maybe that's because pip users are cleverer, more experienced and don't 
have problems; maybe it's because only 1 in 100 people go on to use pip. 
Maybe it's because pip is a heap of trash that nobody touches; or perhaps 
it is so fantastic that nobody has any problems with it. Whatever the 
reason, there's no great big queue of unanswered questions about pip that 
I can see. Hence, ever question gets an answer, and we're discussing 
things about as much as we ought to.

(I don't mean to single out pip, it is just an example.)


-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16324

On Nov 28, 4:42 pm, Steven D'Aprano <steve
+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
> We don't chase people down on the street and lecture them about the
> problems we think they are having, we answer questions about ACTUAL
> problems that they have experienced and asking about.

> ... ever question gets an answer, and we're discussing
> things about as much as we ought to.

How about applying these claims to the OP?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16328

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 05:14:27 -0800, rusi wrote:

> On Nov 28, 4:42 pm, Steven D'Aprano <steve
> +comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
>> We don't chase people down on the street and lecture them about the
>> problems we think they are having, we answer questions about ACTUAL
>> problems that they have experienced and asking about.
> 
>> ... ever question gets an answer, and we're discussing things about as
>> much as we ought to.
> 
> How about applying these claims to the OP?

The OP ranted that the existing packaging systems are an "all-out 
disgrace" (his words), without giving even a single example of a concrete 
problem, and unilaterally declared that this needs the personal attention 
of Guido van Rossum. There's a word for posts like that one: starts with 
T, ends in ROLL.

Presumably the OP believes that not only should he not have to solve his 
own problems with existing packaging systems, but he should not have to 
even describe those supposed problems.

The OP's only question was "when is python going to get a decent module 
distribution system???", to which the right answer is presumably "about a 
decade ago".

Decent does not necessarily mean perfect. If the OP decides to ask a 
sensible question about an actual problem, I'm sure he'll get a sensible 
answer. Perhaps not the answer he is hoping for, but an an answer.


-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16329

On 2011-11-28 14:14, rusi wrote:
> On Nov 28, 4:42 pm, Steven D'Aprano<steve
> +comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info>  wrote:
>>  We don't chase people down on the street and lecture them about the
>>  problems we think they are having, we answer questions about ACTUAL
>>  problems that they have experienced and asking about.
>
>>  ... ever question gets an answer, and we're discussing
>>  things about as much as we ought to.
>
> How about applying these claims to the OP?
>

OP asked only one question (the rest was just ranting) and Steven 
answered it (IMHO in the right manner).

OP never mentioned specific problems or what's wrong with any of the 
distribution systems. So what answers are you expecting from such a post?

Bye, Andreas

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web