[Pulp-dev] PyPI names for Pulp3

Mon Apr 10 20:49:16 UTC 2017

The "datadir" idea is a good option to have, and I can see how it could
work. That said, it has a couple of drawbacks worth considering.

1) I regularly think about the Principle of Least Surprise, and it applies
well here. Python devs know that python code usually goes in site-packages.
Not finding Pulp code there would be surprising in most cases. It may work
great and be completely valid, but I think we should have a very good
reason before straying from such a convention. Python packaging is a
complicated enough topic as it is (see - vs _, setuptools vs. distutil vs
distribute, package name vs. python namespace, etc), that I think we will
benefit from sticking to defaults when possible and reasonable.

This aspect is definitely not a deal-breaker. I'm sure other apps do this
successfully. It's just a factor that makes me lean another direction.

2) This would not entirely eliminate the namespace collision, if we
continued using the "pulp" namespace in python. Keep in mind that we're not
just worried about a collision in site-packages; we're worried about a
collision at runtime in the interpreter's global namespace. If we add a new
location to PYTHONPATH, but the "pulp" namespace is used in the new
location AND in site-packages, that's asking for trouble. Maybe it would
work ok by completely overshadowing the "pulp" in site-packages (I'm not
sure if it would), but it seems safer to just use a different namespace
than "pulp".

And if we use a different namespace than "pulp", I don't think we gain
anything from installing to a separate location.

This also may not be a deal-breaker, but it nudges me in the direction of
just using a non-"pulp" name in the standard location.

Thanks Patrick for raising this as an option.

Michael

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 3:58 PM, Austin Macdonald <amacdona at redhat.com>
wrote:

> +1 for the pcreech {datadir} plan.
>
> If we go with the pcreech plan, I am -0 on using `pulpproj` for our PyPI
> name. If we are not using the PyPI name at import time, then the length
> problem [0] no longer exists, and we are abbreviating without a good
> reason. I think "pulpproject" would be best, since it matches our website.
> We want our users to have to remember as little as possible.
>
> [0]: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2444#note-8
>
> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 11:45 AM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>> After considering @pcreech's point, +1 installing Pulp in {datadir} and
>> having it install there using setup.cfg options. In terms of setting the
>> PYTHONPATH at runtime, it would be best if we could have the Python code do
>> it itself at startup. As an alternative we could do it with the systemd
>> units, but then on other distros they would have to figure it out all again
>> so by doing it in the processes themselves we would avoid that.
>>
>> We still need to pick the PyPI names we would distribute with, but this
>> would allow us to have all imports be:
>>
>> from pulp import ....
>>
>> or for plugins
>>
>> from pulp_rpm import .....
>>
>> -Brian
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 5:59 PM, Patrick Creech <pcreech at redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I've been doing some preliminary research into a 'Have our cake and eat
>>> it too' option.
>>>
>>> While getting back up to speed on things pulp, I came across this
>>> comment on the FPC ticket:
>>>
>>>     https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/671#comment-146777
>>>
>>> Buried towards the end of this comment, in the second to last paragraph,
>>> is a statement of interest
>>> from a packaging perspective:
>>>
>>>     "Moving the common library out of %{site_packages}/pulp and into,
>>> for instance,
>>> %{_datadir}/pulp_common/pulp will also fix the conflict".
>>>
>>> Something to consider, our Pulp project is not intended to be a general
>>> purpose system library.  It
>>> is for pulp purposes only (and pulp plugins).  With that, we don't
>>> necessarily need to live in site-
>>> packages.  FWIW, we do something similar with the SCL that was created.
>>>
>>> We will have to modify pulp tooling to either set PYTHONPATH (bash
>>> script) or sys.path (python
>>> script), but this allows us to keep 'import pulp' while preventing
>>> conflicts with the PuLP project.
>>> This also addresses the Fedora package collision by moving our files out
>>> of site-packages as well,
>>> removing the RPM file collision.
>>>
>>> After doing some reading on setuptools, we can specify "setup.py
>>> install" options in setup.cfg,
>>> allowing us to do this across various ways of distributing our software.
>>>
>>> The last piece is how pypi will treat this (as it was expressed to me
>>> that pip install pulp_project
>>> is of interest).  My initial reading seems to suggest this as 'just
>>> works' with the setup.cfg, but I
>>> would like to verify this.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> Patrick
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
>

-- 

Michael Hrivnak

Principal Software Engineer, RHCE

Red Hat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20170410/8f5c1227/attachment.htm>