4 ms·

I'm sure there's a reason that I'm just not aware of, but why is the PEP for pypackages [1] in draft and not the obvious solution? It just seems that having

by jjice 4y ago

I'm sure there's a reason that I'm just not aware of, but why is the PEP for __pypackages__ [1] in draft and not the obvious solution? It just seems that having those dependencies in the directory would resolve a good few issues without the need for the virtual environment. The big downside would be versioning of the Python interpreter, but at that point, we could still keep virtual environments for that case, right? I assume I'm missing something big and someone who is more in-sync with the Python ecosystem can correct me. [1] https://peps.python.org/pep-0582/ https://peps.python.org/pep-0582/

qbasic_forever 4y ago
Too many cooks in the kitchen. There's a ton of competing ideas to 'fix' packaging in python, but no will or desire from the core to step up and own/shepherd a solution. There's a recent podcast with most of the folks important to the ecosystem and they pretty quickly get to the realization that yes it sucks for users but it's not their domain and no one really owns or can fix python packaging: https://talkpython.fm/episodes/show/406/reimagining-pythons-packaging-workflows https://talkpython.fm/episodes/show/406/reimagining-pythons-...