Packaging and dependencies (was: setuptools without unexpected downloads)

[Ben Finney]

"Diez B. Roggisch" <deets at nospam.web.de> writes:

> In my opinion, python is steering here to a direction like Java with
> it's classpath: scripts like workingenv and it's successor (forgot
> the name) provide hand-tailored environments for a specific
> application.

What a silly waste of resources. So, if fifteen different programs
depend on library X, we'd have fifteen *separate* installations of
library X on the same machine?

And when it comes time to upgrade library X because a security flaw is
discovered, each of the fifteen instances must be upgraded separately?

> So maybe you should rather try and bundle your app in a way that it
> is self-contained.

That entirely defeats the purpose of having packages declare
dependencies on each other. The whole point of re-usable library code
is to *avoid* having to re-bundle every dependency with every separate
application.

-- 
 \           "If [a technology company] has confidence in their future |
  `\      ability to innovate, the importance they place on protecting |
_o__)  their past innovations really should decline."  -- Gary Barnett |
Ben Finney