Skip to main content

A history of Python packaging


Earlier this year I was at PyCon in the US. I had an interesting experience there: people were talking about the problem of packaging and distributing Python libraries. People had the impression that this was an urgent problem that hadn't been solved yet. I detected a vibe asking for the Python core developers to please come and solve our packaging problems for us.

I felt like I had stepped into a parallel universe. I've been using powerful tools to assemble applications from Python packages automatically for years now. Last summer at EuroPython, when this discussion came up again, I maintained that packaging and distributing Python libraries is a solved problem. I put the point strongly, to make people think. I fully agree that the current solutions are imperfect and that they can be improved in many ways. But I also maintain that the current solutions are indeed solutions.

There is now a lot of packaging infrastructure in the Python community, a lot of technology, and a lot of experience. I think that for a lot of Python developers the historical background behind all this is missing. I will try to provide one here. It's important to realize that progress has been made, step by step, for more than a decade now, and we have a fine infrastructure today.

I've named some important contributors to the Python packaging story, but undoubtedly I've also did not mention a lot of other important names. My apologies in advance to those I missed.

The dawn of Python packaging

The Python world has been talking about solutions for packaging and distributing Python libraries for a very long time. I remember when I was new in the Python world about a decade ago in the late 90s, it was considered important and urgent that the Python community implement something like Perl's CPAN. I'm sure too that this debate had started long before I started paying attention.

I've never used CPAN, but over the years I've seen it held up by many as something that seriously contributes to the power of the Perl language. With CPAN, I understand, you can search and browse Perl packages and you can install them from the net.

So, lots of people were talking about a Python equivalent to CPAN with some urgency. At the same time, the Python world didn't seem to move very quickly on this front...


The Distutils SIG (special interest group) was started in late 1998. Greg Ward in the context of this discussion group started to create Distutils about this time. Distutils allows you to structure your Python project so that it has a Through this you can issue a variety of commands, such as creating a tarball out of your project, or installing your project. Distutils importantly also has infrastructure to help compiling C extensions for your Python package. Distutils was added to the Python standard library in Python 1.6, released in 2000.


We now had a way to distribute and install Python packages, if we did the distribution ourselves. We didn't have a centralized index (or catalog) of packages yet, however. To work on this, the Catalog SIG was started in the year 2000.

The first step was to standardize the metadata that could be cataloged by any index of Python packages. Andrew Kuchling drove the effort on this, culminating in PEP 241 in 2001, later updated by PEP 314:

Distutils was modified so it could work with this standardized metadata.


In late 2002, Richard Jones started work on the Python Package Index, PyPI. PyPI is also known as the Cheeseshop, a name I prefer but apparently has been deprecated. The first work on an implementation started, and PEP 301 that describes PyPI was also created then. Distutils was extended so the metadata and packages themselves could be uploaded to this package index. By 2003, the Python package index was up and running.

The Python world now had a way to upload packages and metadata to a central index. If we then manually downloaded a package we could install it using thanks to Distutils.


Phillip Eby started work on Setuptools in 2004. Setuptools is a whole range of extensions to Distutils such as from a binary installation format (eggs), an automatic package installation tool, and the definition and declaration of scripts for installation. Work continued throughout 2005 and 2006, and feature after feature was added to support a whole range of advanced usage scenarios.

By 2005, you could install packages automatically into your Python interpreter using easy_install. Dependencies would be automatically pulled in. If packages contained C code it would pull in the binary egg, or if not available, it would compile one automatically.

The sheer amount of features that Setuptools brings to the table must be stressed: namespace packages, optional dependencies, automatic manifest building by inspecting version control systems, web scraping to find packages in unusual places, recognition of complex version numbering schemes, and so on, and so on. Some of these features perhaps seem esoteric to many, but complex projects use many of them.

The problems of shared packages

The problem remained that all these packages were installed into your Python interpreter. This is icky. People's site-packages directories became a mess of packages. You also need root access to easy_install a package into your system Python. Sharing all packages in a direcory in general, even locally, is not always a good idea: one version of a library needed by one application might break another one.

Solutions for this emerged in 2006.


Ian Bicking drove one line of solutions: virtual-python, which evolved into workingenv, which evolved into virtualenv in 2007. The concept behind this approach is to allow the developer to create as many fully working Python environments as they like from a central system installation of Python. When the developer activates the virtualenv, easy_install will install all packages into its the virtualenv's site-packages. This allows you to create a virtualenv per project and thus isolate each project from each other.


In 2006 as well, Jim Fulton created Buildout, building on Setuptools and easy_install. Buildout can create an isolated project environment like virtualenv does, but is more ambitious: the goal is to create a system for repeatable installations of potentially very complex projects. Instead of writing an INSTALL.txt that tells others who to install the prerequites for a package (Python or not), with Buildout these prerequisites can be installed automatically.

The brilliance of Buildout is that it is easily extensible with new installation recipes. These recipes themselves are also installed automatically from PyPI. This has spawned a whole ecosystem of Buildout recipes that can do a whole range of things, from generating documentation to installing MySQL.

Since Buildout came out of the Zope world, Buildout for a long time was seen as something only Zope developers would use, but the technology is not Zope-specific at all, and more and more developers are picking up on it.

In 2008, Ian Bicking created an alternative for easy_install called pip, also building on Setuptools. Less ambitious than buildout, it aimed to fix some of the shortcomings of easy_install. I haven't used it myself yet, so I will leave it to others to go into details.

Setuptools and the standard library

The many improvements that Setuptools brought to the Python packaging story hadn't made it into the Python Standard Library, where Distutils was stagnating. Attempts had been made to bring Setuptools into the standard library at some point during its development, but for one reason or another these efforts had foundered.

Setuptools probably got where it is so quickly because it worked around often very slow process of adopting something into the standard library, but that approach also helped confuse the situation for Python developers.

Last year Tarek Ziade started looking into the topic of bringing improvements into Distutils. There was a discussion just before PyCon 2009 about this topic between various Python developers as well, which probably explains why the topic was in the air. I understood that some decisions were made:

  • let the people with extensive packaging experience (such as Tarek) drive this process.
  • free the metadata from Distutils and Setuptools so that other packaging tools can make use of it more easily.


By 2008, Setuptools had become a vital part of the Python development infrastructure. Unfortunately the Setuptools development process has some flaws. It is very centered around Phillip Eby. While he had been extremely active before, by that time he was spending a lot less energy on it. Because of the importance of the technology to the wider community, various developers had started contributing improvements and fixes, but these were piling up.

This year, after some period of trying to open up the Setuptools project itself, some of these developers led by Tarek Ziade decided to fork Setuptools. The fork is named Distribute. The aim is to develop the technology with a larger community of developers. One of the first big improvements of the Distribute project is Python 3 support.

Quite understandably this fork led to some friction between Tarek, Phillip and others. I trust that this friction will resolve itself and that the developers involved will continue to work with each other, as all have something valuable contribute.

Operating system packaging

One point that always comes up in discussions about Python packaging tools is operating system packaging. In particular Linux distributions have developed extremely powerful ways to distribute and install complex libraries and application, manage versions and dependencies and so on.

Naturally when the topic of Python packaging comes up, people think about operating system packaging solutions like this. Let me start off that I fully agree that Python packaging solutions can learn a lot from operating system packaging solutions.

Why don't we just use a solution like that directly, though? Why is a Python specific packaging solution necessary at all?

There are a number of answers to this. One is that operating packaging solutions aren't universal: if we decided to use Debian's system, what would we do on Windows?

The most important answer however is that there are two related but also very different use cases for packaging:

  • system administration: deploying and administrating existing software.
  • development: combining software to develop new software.

The Python packaging systems described above primarily try to solve the development use case: I'm a Python developer, and I'm developing multiple projects at the same time, perhaps in multiple versions, that have different dependencies. I need to reuse packages created by other developers, so I need an easy way to depend on such packages. These packages are sometimes in a rather early state of development, or perhaps I'm even creating a new one. If I want to improve such a package I depend on, I need an easy way to start hacking on it.

Operating system packaging solutions as I've seen them used are ill suited for the development use case. They are aimed at creating a single consistent installation that is easy to upgrade with an eye on security. Backwards compatibility is important. Packages tend to be relatively mature.

For all I know it might indeed be possible to use an operating system packaging tool as a good development packaging tool. But I've heard very little about such practices. Please enlighten me if you have.

It's also important to note that the Python world isn't as good as it should be at supporting operating system packaging solutions. The freeing up of package metadata from the confines of the file into a more independently reusable format as was decided at PyCon should help here.


We are now in a time of consolidation and opening up. Many of the solutions pioneered by Setuptools are going to be polished to go into the Python Standard Library. At the same time, the community surrounding these technologies is opening up. By making metadata used by Distutils and Setuptools more easily available to other systems, new tools can also more easily be created.

The Python packaging story had many contributors over the years. We now have a powerful infrastructure. Do we have an equivalent to CPAN? I don't know enough about CPAN to be sure. But what we have is certainly useful and valuable. In my parallel universe, I use advanced Python packaging tools every day, and I recommend all Python programmers to look into this technology if they haven't already. Join me in my parallel universe!

Update: I just found out there was a huge thread on python-dev about this in the last few days which focused around the question whether we have the equivalent of CPAN now. One of them funny coincidences...


Comments powered by Disqus