Le Thu, 26 Sep 2013 14:54:49 +1000, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> a écrit : > On 26 September 2013 14:30, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > That said, there are changes that I think are definitely worth > > making due to the concerns you raise: > > > > - the module name should be "_ensurepip" in all versions > > - the PEP should explicitly state that the "don't remove _ensurepip > > and it's wheel files" caveat for redistributors applies only in 3.4+ > > (where removing it will break pyvenv) > > Donald pointed out it makes more sense to continue with the idea of a > properly documented public "ensurepip" module in 3.4+, and have the > "_ensurepip" version as an implementation detail of the 2.7 and 3.3 > installers that is included in the stdlib primarily so it can be > covered by the existing buildbot fleet.
Hmm, but what is the point of "_ensurepip" exactly? Are people supposed to type "python -m _ensurepip"? With all due respect, Barry's argument looks rather paranoid to me. I would suggest a clear choice: - either having "ensurepip" in 2.7 is useful and we endorse it as a public module (not something hidden somewhere) - which I personally think is reasonable - or it's not useful and we don't introduce it at all A middleground doesn't make sense here, except in a broken "design by committee" sense. Regards Antoine. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
