serious conflicts between python pks installed via yum vs pip

[Matej Cepl]

On 10.2.2012 18:09, 80 wrote:
> Python guidelines recommends that packagers installs python eggs using
> distutils (python setup.py install as recommended in guidelines) while
> pip use the same install method as easy_install (provided by
> setuptools/distribute). The former one install egg metadata as a file,
> the latter as a directory, that's not a packaging/rpm issue.

a) I don't think the answer “Then don’t do it” is a good one. Some other 
Fedora-packaged languages (Perl comes to mind) allow three levels (or 
maybe even four) of installation of packages (in CPAN meaning of the 
word), system-wide-RPM-packaged, system-wide-unpackaged (to 
/usr/local/*), and per-user-in-$HOME. Not sure how it is with Ruby and 
PHP, but I believe this should be a standard in all major 
Fedora-packaged languages.
b) distutils v. setuptools conflict is just an unfortunate testimony of 
immature bad state of the Python upstream packaging, but it seems to me 
that generally Python world is moving towards setuptools. Shouldn't we 
follow the suite and move towards setuptools as well?
c) If we want to have as many Python packages packaged in RPMs (the 
terminology is going to kill me soon) do we have some pip2spec (in the 
same manner as there is cpan2spec)?

Best,

Matěj