[Catalog-sig] PyPI and setuptools

[Ronald Oussoren]

On 10 Feb, 2013, at 0:37, Stephen Thorne <stephen at thorne.id.au> wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 11:28 PM, Jesse Noller <jnoller at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 9, 2013, at 6:13 PM, Stephen Thorne <stephen at thorne.id.au> wrote:
> 
> > Hello,
> >
> > One of my concerns with the recent pip dramas that have seen some excellent and timely action from catalog-sig and others, is that 'setuptools' is still widely distributed and used instead of distribute/pip.
> 
> Well, lets back up: these aren't pip specific problems: just about every client side tool for installing from pypi suffers from lax security.
>  
> >
> > Setuptools either needs to be sunset, notices put on pypi, warnings given to its users, out of linux distros, or it has to upgraded to be feature compatible with the security updates.
> >
> > That's a strong statement I've made, but I feel strongly that something has to be done. I would like to solicit opinions here before an action plan is composed.
> 
> This is a bit of a question mark to me: the reality is that easy_install/setup tools usage is probably still dramatically higher than that of more modern tooling. That, and AFAIK, there are still features of them that the alternatives do not support (binary eggs, which are a must for windows).
> 
> Yikes. This is something I didn't fully understand until now. Our windows users prefer to use setuptools and eggs? That make sense I guess. 

I'm not on windows but don't use pip either. The primary reason for that is that pip doesn't offer a compelling enough feature set, as far as I'm concerned it just provides a different way to spell the installation command ("pip install foo" instead of "easy_install foo"). 

Ronald
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/catalog-sig/attachments/20130211/9ec9ce48/attachment-0001.html>