pip/pip3 confusion and keeping up to date

[Thomas Passin]

On 11/6/2023 5:04 PM, Karsten Hilbert via Python-list wrote:
> Am Mon, Nov 06, 2023 at 02:43:47PM -0700 schrieb Mats Wichmann via Python-list:
> 
>>> I had just hoped someone here might have a handy pointer for
>>> how to deal with modules having to be installed from pip for
>>> use with an apt-installed python-based application.
>>
>> That just shouldn't happen - such packages are supposed to be dependency-complete within
>> the packaging universe in question.
> 
> Yep, that's the preferable ideal world.
> 
> Which doesn't happen (but that's not the fault of anyone
> around here, no harm intended).
> 
> .From all the posts I gather the answer to my question is
> "simply": unpackaged-but-needed modules need to be packaged.

I think there is one aspect that isn't getting consideration here.  And 
that is whether or not you want these packages installed in the default 
system Python install.  You might not.  Maybe you want to get the latest 
possible version of super-dooper-gui-helper, but one of its dependencies 
doesn't play well with the system Python libraries. Or ... but you get 
the point.  There are probably many cases where you want *not* to 
install into the system Python world.  So you would need to come up with 
an APT-based installer that doesn't do that.

Obviously it's not unthinkable; it is just one more thing to figure out.