Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pypi.org is running a survey on the state of Python packaging

pypi.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 193 posts

Re: Pypi.org is running a survey on the state of Python packaging

#21

Post by mrweasel »

at_a_remove wrote: post #11

I have a terrible admission to make: one of the reason I like Python is its huge standard library, and I like that because I just ... despise looking for libraries, trying to install them, evaluating their fitness, and so on. I view dependencies outside of the standard library as a kind of technical debt, not because I suffer from Not Invented Here and want to code it myself, no, I look and think, "Why isn't this in…

If requests and a basic web framework was in the standard library you’d effectively eliminate the majority of my dependencies.

Honestly I doubt see the package management being an issue for most end-users. Between the builtin venv, conda and Docker I feel that the use-cases for most is well covered.

The only focus area I really see is better documentation. Easier to read documentation more precisely. Perhaps a set of templates to help people getting start with something like pyproject.

It feels like the survey is looking for a specific answer, or maybe it’s just that surveys are really hard to do. In any case I find responses to be mostly: I have no opinion one way or the other.

Re: Pypi.org is running a survey on the state of Python packaging

#22

Post by JonathonW »

black3r wrote: post #15

I just wish that PyPI would enforce binary wheels going forward (at least for linux x64/arm64 for people who use Docker, but ideally for all common platforms). They already supply the cibuildwheel tool to automate their builds, so it shouldn't be that hard for library developers... Software developers shouldn't need to figure out what build-time dependencies their libraries need...

I haven't had too much trouble with packages missing binary wheels lately. Occasionally Pip doesn't find them, which looks the same as if the binary wheel were missing entirely (looking at you, Anaconda-- update your Pip already), but they're usually there.

But I'm usually on Windows if I need binary wheels; maybe the coverage is a bit different on Linux.

Re: Pypi.org is running a survey on the state of Python packaging

#23

Post by qbasic_forever »

Kwpolska wrote: post #20
zbentley wrote: post #2

I imagine many of you have feedback that could be useful to folks making decisions about the future of Python packaging, a common subject of complaint in many discussions here. Remember not to just complain, but to offer specific problems/solutions--i.e. avoid statements like "virtualenvs suck, why can't it be like NPM?" and prefer instead feedback like "the difference between Python interpreter version and what virt…

"virtualenvs suck, why can't it be like NPM?" is a specific problem and a specific solution. The problem being having to manage venvs (which have many gotchas and pitfalls, and no standarization), and the solution is to replace those with packages being installed into the project folder with standardized and well-known tools.

Keep an eye on https://peps.python.org/pep-0582/ it's a proposal to add local directory/node_modules-like behavior to package installs. It stalled out a few years ago but I heard there is a lot more discussion and push to get it in now.

I think if this PEP makes it in then like 90% of people's pain with pip just completely goes away almost overnight. Love it or hate it the NPM/node_modules style of all dependencies dumped in a local directory solves a _ton_ of problems in the packaging world. It would go a long way towards making the experience much smoother for most python users.

Re: Pypi.org is running a survey on the state of Python packaging

#24

Post by woodruffw »

MonkeyMalarky wrote: post #16
clintonb wrote: post #3

The survey is at https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/M5XKQCT .

Seems more oriented to (potential) contributors than end users of the packaging system. Who cares about mission statements and inclusivity, secure funding and pay developers to make the tools.

> Who cares about mission statements and inclusivity, secure funding and pay developers to make the tools.

These are connected things.

I maintain a PyPA member project (and contribute to many others), and the latter is aided by the former: the mission statement keeps the community organized around shared goals (such as standardizing Python's packaging tooling), and inclusivity insures a healthy and steady flow of new contributors (and potential corporate funding sources).

Re: Pypi.org is running a survey on the state of Python packaging

#25

Post by manuelabeledo »

at_a_remove wrote: post #11

I have a terrible admission to make: one of the reason I like Python is its huge standard library, and I like that because I just ... despise looking for libraries, trying to install them, evaluating their fitness, and so on. I view dependencies outside of the standard library as a kind of technical debt, not because I suffer from Not Invented Here and want to code it myself, no, I look and think, "Why isn't this in…

This is one of the reasons why I don't quite like Node. It feels like everything is a dependency.

It seems ridiculous to me that there isn't a native method for something as simple and ubiquitous as putting a thread to sleep, or that there is an external library (underscore) that provides 100+ methods that seem to be staples in any modern language.

Python is nice in that way. It is also opinionated in a cohesive and community driven manner, e.g. PEP8.

Re: Pypi.org is running a survey on the state of Python packaging

#27

Post by [deleted] »

samwillis wrote: post #19
at_a_remove wrote: post #11

I have a terrible admission to make: one of the reason I like Python is its huge standard library, and I like that because I just ... despise looking for libraries, trying to install them, evaluating their fitness, and so on. I view dependencies outside of the standard library as a kind of technical debt, not because I suffer from Not Invented Here and want to code it myself, no, I look and think, "Why isn't this in…

> despise looking for libraries, trying to install them, evaluating their fitness, and so on. This is exactly why I prefer the larger opinionated web frameworks (Django, Vue.js) to the smaller more composable frameworks (Flask, React). I don’t what to make decisions every time I need a new feature, I want something that “just works”. Python and Django just work, and brilliantly at that!

[deleted]

Re: Pypi.org is running a survey on the state of Python packaging

#28

Post by YetAnotherNick »

woodruffw wrote: post #9
YetAnotherNick wrote: post #8

I wish there is some package manager in middle of conda and pip. Conda is too strict and often get stuck in SAT solving. pip doesn't even ask when reinstalling a version currently being used. Edit: Typo: reinstalling a version of package currently being used

> pip doesn't even ask when reinstalling a version currently being used. Just as an explanation: a "version" in Python packaging can come from one of many potential distributions, including a local distribution (such as a path on disk) that might different from a canonical released distribution on PyPI. Having `pip install ...` always re-install based on its candidate selection rules is generally good (IMO), since an…

I meant this for dependency not the package I am installing.

Re: Pypi.org is running a survey on the state of Python packaging

#29

Post by ryan29 »

I didn't take the survey because I've never packaged anything for PyPI, but I wish all of the package managers would have an option for domain validated namespaces.

If I own example.com, I should be able to have 'pypi.org/example.com/package'. The domain can be tied back to my (domain verified) GitHub profile and it opens up the possibility of using something like 'example.com/.well-known/pypi/' for self-managed signing keys, etc..

I could be using the same namespace for every package manager in existence if domain validated namespaces were common.

Then, in my perfect world, something like Sigstore could support code signing with domain validated identities. Domain validated signatures make a lot of sense. Domains are relatively inexpensive, inexhaustible, and globally unique.

For code signing, I recognize a lot of project names and developer handles while knowing zero real names for the companies / developers involved. If those were sitting under a recognizable organizational domain name (example.com/ryan29) I can do a significantly better job of judging something's trustworthiness than if it's attributed to 'Ryan Smith Inc.', right?

Re: Pypi.org is running a survey on the state of Python packaging

#30

Post by shireboy »

I’ve been tinkering with stable diffusion lately and this has been a rude introduction to python. Coming from .net (nuget) and JavaScript (npm), it’s baffling that there isn’t an established solution for python. It looks to me like people are trying, but different libraries use different techniques. To a newcomer this is confusing.
Post reply on HN