Re: setuptools without unexpected downloads

If you look at PEP 345...

http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0345/

...you'll see that the dependency information described is quite close
to how such information is represented in Debian packages and with
other dependency management systems. This isn't an accident because
the authors were surely already familiar with such representations,
which have been around for quite some time. Admittedly, it isn't easy
to make a system which observes the rules of all the different
existing systems; for example, can .deb metadata and .rpm metadata be
interpreted in the same way and be taken to mean the same thing?
However, the argument that a dependency manager cannot deal with
different system packages is a weak one: apt and Smart have shown that
dependency management can be decoupled from package management.

Do you care to elaborate on how apt has shown that? I use it every day (or
at least often), but I have to admit I never delved to deeply into them -
to me it appears that apt is a retrieval-solution, not so much a dependency
management system. The dependencies are declared in the debs themselves,
used by dpkg-* - aren't they? Sure, apt does solve them, but how so
decoupled from the underlying .deps?

Regarding smart: what I read here

"""
Smart is not meant as an universal wrapper around different package formats.
It does support RPM, DEB and Slackware packages on a single system, but
won't permit relationships among different package managers. While
cross-packaging system dependencies could be enabled easily, the packaging
policies simply do not exist today.
This is not at all different from what you can already do. In fact, Debian
has been shipping the RPM package manager for a few years now. "Possible"
does not equal "good idea", and everybody should stick to their native
package format.
"""

in the FAQ doesn't make me think that it's just a matter of unwillingness
from the setuptools-people but instead an intrinsic property of
dependency-handling that makes cross-package-management-management (or
meta-management) hard.

Apart from the technical intricacies of .deb/.rpm and their respective
tools, on thing sure makes this an argument: THEY evolve as they like, and
it sure puts a lot of additional burden to the setuptools-guys to keep
track with that.

Of course, I've already pointed out that despite being written in
Python, there's apparently no interest in the setuptools community to
look at what Smart manages to do, mostly due to spurious licensing
"concerns", and there's always the "argument zero" from people who
choose to ignore existing dependency management solutions: that
Windows doesn't provide such solutions - which is apparently not
entirely true, either.

[...]

For example - what if there is no debian package that provides module XY
in the required version? Do you rather install it into the global
site-packages, or do you rather keep it private to the program requiring
it? I'd say the latter is better in mostly all circumstances, as it will
not disrupt the workings of other programs/modules.

For what it's worth, it is possible to use Debian dependency/package
management as a non-root user with a local site-packages directory,
but it isn't particularly elegant. See this proof of concept for
details:

http://www.boddie.org.uk/paul/userinstall.html

It's a fairly heavy solution which installs a lot of the
administrative toolchain just for local package installations, but you
do get dependency integration with the packages providing the
libraries that may be required by various Python extension modules.

Certainly a nice solution to a real problem that might be handy for me at
some time. Yet I fail to see how that relates to the above question: if the
OS package repository fails to meet a certain version requirement, how do
you deal with that - installation local to the product you're actually
interested in installing, or in a more public way that possibly interferes
with other software?

Diez
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: [SLE] APT & Reiserfs
    ... Try with apt-get -f install. ... This must resolve the unmet dependencies. ... This error message appears when apt is unable to locate a dependency in his ... > Reading Package Lists... ...
    (SuSE)
  • Re: k3b in etch?
    ... Selecting previously deselected package libk3b2. ... dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of k3b: ... Package libresmgr1 is not installed. ... You might want to run `apt-get -f install' to correct these: ...
    (Debian-User)
  • Re: [opensuse] Opensuse software updates and repositories?
    ... been done during the install, there will normally be a requirement to ... To do so opensuse makes use of software repositories which are similar ... Not for security updates, just software management repositories. ... http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/ <package name>/STABLE/10.2/ ...
    (SuSE)
  • Re: SFWgcc31l
    ... installed the SFWslang as dependency and wanted to install ... SFWgcc31l as a dep too. ... dependency which /is/ on the same CD. ... package. ...
    (comp.unix.solaris)
  • Re: Seems I have some real problems
    ... Are you sure you had atrpms enabled on that last try?... ... It's intended for a 'bare-metal' level install. ... No package alsa-kmdl-2.6.25.4-10.fc8 available. ... --> Finished Dependency Resolution ...
    (Fedora)