Re: PEP-582 concerns

On Wed, Feb 20, 2019, 08:13 Dan Ryan <[email protected]> wrote:

> I don’t have a ton of concern with regard to pipenv. We already just jump
> through hoops to modify paths and such at runtime, this honestly sounds
> like a cleaner approach. Obviously we won’t actually get to clean up the
> code for a long time but you know...
>
> My basic position is that we are just pointing at python libraries and
> code at the end of the day. The only real concern is scripts— where will
> they live, etc.
>

Yeah, __pypackages__ has no way to handle scripts, and also no way to
access packages when you're running from a directory. Pipenv already
handles both of these cases fine today, so I'm not sure how having
__pypackages__ several years from now could help you.


> One final thing this enables as far as I understand is a sort of npm-like
> option for ignoring resolution conflicts and simply performing a sort of
> nested installation of subdependencies inside a top level dependency’s
> __pypackages__ folder. So if you did install two packages with a conflict,
> they wouldn’t necessarily have to find a resolution.
>

I don't think __pypackages__ would change anything here. The blocker for
doing npm-style nested subdependencies in Python isn't that we only have
one folder, it's that we only have one sys.modules, and I don't think there
are any proposals to change that.

-n

--
Distutils-SIG mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/distutils-sig.python.org/
Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/TFJ6M6Y3BC7SYW6D4XHAYVKFC3OIDR6X/