Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 1/2] python3-installer: add installer module

[Konrad Weihmann <kweihmann@outlook.com>]

On 10.03.22 19:25, Ross Burton wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2022 at 17:36, Konrad Weihmann <kweihmann@outlook.com 
> <mailto:kweihmann@outlook.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Sorry to say that - but to me (even though it's more work) pip seems to
>     be the better option - the proposed tool is ~8 months old and not part
>     of pypa community as it seems - so in comparison to pip this could not
>     be labeled "battle proven".
> 
> 
> It’s not that unheard of, for example the flit_core bootstrap 
> documentation says to use it:
> 
> https://flit.readthedocs.io/en/latest/bootstrap.html 
> <https://flit.readthedocs.io/en/latest/bootstrap.html>
> 
> It also does one job and just one job, which is A Very Good Thing.

Still doesn't make it the best choice TBH.
Just diving into the code makes me wonder about a lot, like

- can this tool run on non arm/aarch64/x86/x86-64 hosts 
(https://github.com/pradyunsg/installer/blob/fad2894a572d5497a3dceec58407c276f21e8c11/src/installer/utils.py#L140) 
- in its full feature set? - the assumptions made by this function, 
makes me think, it doesn't
- support of this here https://github.com/pradyunsg/installer/issues/98, 
should be given by a matured tool

> 
>     Especially as the second patch of the series removes the possibility to
>     use the tooling proposed by python upstream for installing stuff.
> 
> 
> Do you mean Pip here? That’s one option.  Installing a wheel is a 
> glorified unzip, pip brings a lot of baggage that we don’t care about.
> 
> I should make it clear that this class is not for installing arbitrary 
> wheels, it installs a wheel we just built and in the future will build 
> the wheel too.

Then that's definitely missing in the commit message, that this should 
be an option and not the default

> 
>     If one would want to have that kind of tooling the switch from pure
>     setup.py to toml and friends could have been done already a year ago
>     (python-build was the originally proposed tool iirc) - so this feels to
>     me like a step in the wrong direction (esp. the part that this would
>     rely on a tool **not** supported by upstream)
> 
> 
> Adding support for build is next on the list.
> 
> Ross
> 

Anyway, I think in before this patch series the switch to wheels was 
good enough to work with it, now it's just introducing another tool - 
that doesn't feel right to me, but I will stop arguing about that