> Actually, there seems to be a much simpler way of doing this in Fedora (and any distro more generally):
> - setuptools and pip RPMs will carry the wheel inside them and drop it into ensurepip/_bundled
> - the wheels will be rebuilt during every RPM build everytime *after patching*, so they will carry security patches etc.
> - we will use the RPM release as the "build tag" mentioned in PEP 427 [1], so that when we e.g. fix a security bug but don't bump the version, "ensurepip --upgrade" will still see that the wheel has to be reinstalled (otherwise it'd say think the version is already there and wouldn't reinstall)
> So the only thing we will need to implement will be autodiscovery of the wheels, since they will change names independently on python3 package, but I think we can do that :) From upstream point of view this shouldn't break anything, but it'd also probably not have any benefit. Would you still accept such patch?

Note that this misses one thing mentioned in my mail: local changes.

Because scripting languages are readable and modifiable, sysadmins will sometimes fix bugs that affect them by deploying just the changed .py files (rather than rebuilding an rpm package).  Configuration management (puppet, Ansible, chef, etc) makes it easy to deploy and track hotfixes this way.  If wheels are cached at rpm buildtime then this workflow will cease to function correctly for virtualenv and these bundled libraries.  Since the bundling is an implementation detail that sysadmins will have no reason to know about until they want to hotfix whichever libraries are bundled, this is likely to take them a while to figure out.

The upstream solution has this problem, too. In fact, this approach will be much closer to the upstream solution in the sense that it uses prebuilt wheels to install/update virtualenv. The wheels will just come from different packages than python3 itself. IMO it'd be sufficient to place a README file into the ensurepip/_bundled dir that would explain this. Actually, diverging from upstream in this way is an argument for not doing the "files copying" solution now.
While trying to create the patch that would rebuild the wheels from system and install them in venv, I bumped into few ugly problems, which is why I came up with this "wheels in RPMs" solution in the first place. I'd like to do this for 3.4 in Fedora and then start working on the "file copying" solution that would be acceptable for upstream Python 3.5. When this is done upstream, we will move to there with 3.5.

Creating the wheels from the files on the system keeps the number of copies of files to a minimum.  That, in turn, makes it easier for everyone involved to discover which files are the ones that do something.


> Regards,
> Slavek.
> [1] http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0427/#id11
> _______________________________________________
> python-devel mailing list
> python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/python-devel

Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda.