[Numpy-discussion] Proposal: stop supporting 'setup.py install'; start requiring 'pip install .' instead

[Edison Gustavo Muenz]

I'm sorry if this is out-of-topic, but I'm curious on why nobody mentioned
Conda yet.

Is there any particular reason for not using it?

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 11:48 AM, James E.H. Turner <jehturner at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Apparently it is not well known that if you have a Python project
>> source tree (e.g., a numpy checkout), then the correct way to install
>> it is NOT to type
>>
>>    python setup.py install   # bad and broken!
>>
>> but rather to type
>>
>>    pip install .
>>
>
> Though I haven't studied it exhaustively, it always seems to me that
> pip is bad & broken, whereas python setup.py install does what I
> expect (even if it's a mess internally). In particular, when
> maintaining a distribution of Python packages, you try to have some
> well-defined, reproducible build from source tarballs and then you
> find that pip is going off and downloading stuff under the radar
> without being asked (etc.). Stopping that can be a pain & I always
> groan whenever some package insists on using pip. Maybe I don't
> understand it well enough but in this role its dependency handling
> is an unnecessary complication with no purpose. Just a comment that
> not every installation is someone trying to get numpy on their
> laptop...
>
> Cheers,
>
> James.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion at scipy.org
> https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20151027/2c927dd9/attachment.html>