----- Original Message -----
On 11/28/2013 12:42 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
> I hope I covered all the important points. Basically, we can make this work
> in a way acceptable for upstream, if we package setupttols and pip as
> wheels. It'll require some extra effort, but I think it's worth it.
> Thoughts? Anyone has better/simpler ideas?
From an upstream point of view, so long as test.test_ensurepip and
test.test_venv still work, things should generally be OK.
I quite like the idea of checking for the consistency of the RECORD
files between the system pip and the one in the virtualenv (as well as
using RECORD as a guide to what to copy into a fresh venv). If you get
that working, I'd be interested in a Python 3.5 venv and/or ensurepip
patch to do that by default, and only bootstrap from the embedded wheel
if there was no system pip available.
Actually, there seems to be a much simpler way of doing this in Fedora (and any distro
- setuptools and pip RPMs will carry the wheel inside them and drop it into
- 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 , 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?