5 ms·

Why not to make a Python package in 2021. Even as a long time Python user, the packaging ecosystem feels fragmented and error-prone at best. Honestly, it sours

Why not to make a Python package in 2021. Even as a long time Python user, the packaging ecosystem feels fragmented and error-prone at best. Honestly, it sours the experience of writing Python code knowing you might eventually need to make it work on another computer.

neolog 6y ago
It's fragmented, but it doesn't need to be error prone if people use the good tools instead of the old low-level tools.
- jimmaswell 6y ago
  There would be no room for error if we just put the libraries in with the project as files instead of adding all these extra steps. Nobody seems to like this simple, bulletproof method anymore for some reason though.
  - 1337shadow 6y ago
    That's exactly what a package manager does
    - jimmaswell 6y ago
      A package manager is a whole separate program with config files that adds an extra build step and works like a black box. I mean just having the libraries entirely present in the repository. If an update is needed then someone pastes it in and commits it. This also lets you organize how you want.
      - neolog 6y ago
        That's often called "vendoring" these days.
saila 6y ago
I think for the vast majority of at least pure-Python projects you could just use poetry and upload your packages to PyPI or a private index. You can go from an empty directory to publishing a package within minutes with poetry (although, of course, you probably shouldn't).
say_it_as_it_is 6y ago
The only constant in the python community over the last twenty years are the criticisms about its packaging
m463 6y ago
I agree. What I actually like is using the system package manager to install stuff. pacman -s or apt-get install letting multiple packaging systems muck with your system is a recipe for hurt somewhere down the line.
- NavinF 6y ago
  Even more fragmentation? As a dev I'm not going to make packages for anything other than 'pip install' and maybe Ubuntu if you're lucky. I would also heavily discourage distros from shipping ancient buggy versions of the package, which is all distros are good for these days. Packaging sucks.

neolog 6y ago

It's fragmented, but it doesn't need to be error prone if people use the good tools instead of the old low-level tools.

jimmaswell 6y ago
There would be no room for error if we just put the libraries in with the project as files instead of adding all these extra steps. Nobody seems to like this simple, bulletproof method anymore for some reason though.
- 1337shadow 6y ago
  That's exactly what a package manager does
  - jimmaswell 6y ago
    A package manager is a whole separate program with config files that adds an extra build step and works like a black box. I mean just having the libraries entirely present in the repository. If an update is needed then someone pastes it in and commits it. This also lets you organize how you want.
    - neolog 6y ago
      That's often called "vendoring" these days.

saila 6y ago

I think for the vast majority of at least pure-Python projects you could just use poetry and upload your packages to PyPI or a private index. You can go from an empty directory to publishing a package within minutes with poetry (although, of course, you probably shouldn't).

say_it_as_it_is 6y ago

The only constant in the python community over the last twenty years are the criticisms about its packaging

m463 6y ago

I agree. What I actually like is using the system package manager to install stuff. pacman -s or apt-get install letting multiple packaging systems muck with your system is a recipe for hurt somewhere down the line.

NavinF 6y ago
Even more fragmentation? As a dev I'm not going to make packages for anything other than 'pip install' and maybe Ubuntu if you're lucky. I would also heavily discourage distros from shipping ancient buggy versions of the package, which is all distros are good for these days. Packaging sucks.