Hi Sean, Removing the utils from the gdal sdist/wheel means that people who install gdal won't have the utils unless they installed the utils wheel.
My understanding from the earlier discussion was that it is too disruptive and confusing for the average user, thus I ended up with this mix compromise. Regarding the pip behaviour, that was my conclusion upon testing it. You may verify it easily :) I think that is a good compromise for now and we might want to add a warning somehow in gdal 3.3 if we want to do a proper split in some major version later, say in gdal 3.5, along with the other cleanups that are planned for 3.5. Idan On Thu, 25 Mar 2021, 02:31 Sean Gillies via gdal-dev, < gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org> wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 2:51 PM Alan Snow <alansno...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> One recommendation I have for this RFC would be to remove gdal_utils >> entirely from the main GDAL repository and into its own repository. >> The main reason would be to test against multiple versions of GDAL to >> ensure compatibility. Compatibility across versions is a main goal of this >> RFC if I understand correctly, so that is why I bring it up. >> >> Hope that is helpful, >> Alan >> > > Thank you for bringing this up and joining the discussion, Alan!. I agree > that gdal_utils is a lot like projects we work on together in this respect. > > I scanned the RFC and am confused about what I read in > https://github.com/talos-gis/gdal/blob/Branch_rfc78_py_modules/gdal/doc/source/development/rfc/rfc78_gdal_utils_package.rst#how-to-upgrade-the-utils-without-upgrading-the-bindings > . > > > pip install a wheel overwrites whichever files already exist (even if > installed by a different package) If you pip install gdal then pip install > gdal-utils you'd get the utils from gdal-utils. If later you do again pip > install gdal with a different version then you'd get the utils from gdal > again, and so on. (it doesn't seem that it matters which version is a > bigger number, just which one you installed later) > > How certain are we of this? I am not 100% certain that this is true or > that the behavior of pip here is totally specified. Even if it is true, it > seems like there is a lot of potential for confusion. I think it would be > much better for users if we didn't have 2 distributions contending for the > same namespace. > > -- > Sean Gillies > _______________________________________________ > gdal-dev mailing list > gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev >
_______________________________________________ gdal-dev mailing list gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
