Dear Django, please ask others about packaging!

Posted: 2012-09-10 16:17   |   Source   |  More posts about django packaging


Dear Django, and any human beings interested in what I have to say too... This blog post is ostensibly about Python packaging. It's responding to Tarek's post.

But I'm actually currently not that concerned about Python packaging - it's good to see it is improving! This blog post is really a plea for people to learn from others if possible, in this case about packaging. So if you take message to heart already, you can just stop reading now and I won't mind.

Of course my whole core spiel about learning from others could be seen as hypocritical as I haven't bothered to learn much about distutils2 yet and admit this below. This is because I'm not anticipating an imminent switch to it myself, nor am I actively working on Python packaging solutions. I do hope to learn more about NodeJS's npm at some point, which currently confuses me but also vaguely intrigues me...

I understand why distutils2 is there. It was high time to take a fresh look at Python packaging. And when you do this it is useful to ignore details for a while - you can't change everything in one big step.

I also understand why Tarek sees Django, one of Python's most popular frameworks, as a great opportunity to help distutils2 adoption. This is because core Django has rejected automated packaging tools until now. That's a great opportunity for distutils2. I'm one of those people who has talked about Django and packaging before. I'm all for Django look into adopting distutils2. Sounds like a good way forward for Django!

I think Tarek or others could also help distutils2 adoption a lot by offering interoperability features between old & smelly stuff with distutils2. More of that please! I hope we'll get to a world soon where I can adopt distutils2-based packages in my existing buildout-based Python 2 stacks.

Now we're done with the preamble, and we'll get to the core of my point.

Greybeard leans over cane and tells his tale...

Setuptools is messy and has misfeatures. But people have been doing all kinds of advanced packaging projects on top of it for over 5 years nonetheless, with all kinds of great incremental advances along the way, and lots of experience gained.

So the existing, smelly, messy stack got strengths too. I really like being able to be able (with buildout) to automatically install even very complex development environments that some other developers have worked on, or give mine to others. That happens quite a lot to me, and the alternative of telling people to follow complex manual instructions would have been quite painful.

So I get a bit frustrated when Tarek says:

Some people will tell you that the new things we've built are not production-ready or that they don't match the features Setuptools provides. But ask yourself if those Setuptools features are really something you want or are subcultures additions from some specific communities.

This is because he is not countering any specific argument about bits not being production ready, nor is it about particular missing features, meaning this counterargument is, frankly, just as worthless as saying "it's not production ready" without elaboration. It may even be somewhat dangerous.

To ignore hard-won experience merely on the basis handwaving it away as "subculture additions from some specific communities" is to throw out the experience of those communities, and then you risk being condemned to repeat some bad history, as, face it, quite a few of us subculture folks over here (and I'm including Tarek) have way more experience with Python packaging than the subculture of the Django core developers.

Subculture grumbles

I don't know what distutils2 infrastructure can or cannot do. If I, native of some undoubtedly backward setuptools-stack subculture, were to evaluate it, I'd certainly look for various things.

I'd want to know whether it can pin down versions of library dependencies somehow for my projects. My subculture finds this very important. Are these just useless backward traditions?

I'd also definitely want some of the features of mr.developer available to me, so I can easily check out various dependencies of a project in a hackable form. Another one of those subcultural quirks, or worthwhile even in modern civilization?

I'd like there a way for me to automate the installation of scripts and applications that I can then invoke from the command-line, because I find my subculture projects doing quite a bit of that. Perhaps this is just ancient subculture stuff or do modern folks need that too?

If I were to build large projects, I'd probably want some features along the lines of buildout for including non-Python code. Can we do without such quaint notions in modern times?

Hohum, so, if you are thinking about adopting distutils2, please do ask yourself what particular neat features are offered by setuptools, buildout, pip, mr.developer, instead of saying "it's just some subculture thing we don't care about".

Instead, I hope people will try to establish the use cases handled by these in a distutils2 world in some shape or form. Hopefully it'll work better with better documentation. Or at least people can reject the call for particular features with considered opinions and solid counterarguments.

Now I know that's probably what Tarek means himself when he says that subculture stuff that just rubs me the wrong way:

But ask yourself if those Setuptools features are really something you want or are subcultures additions from some specific communities.

Do consider feature requests carefully. Try to understand the underlying use cases. But don't use the "subculture additions from some specific communities" argument to handwave arguments or people away.

Contents © 2005-2014 Martijn Faassen | Twitter | Github | Gittip