PEP 650: Specifying Installer Requirements for Python Projects

I don’t think you’d need to restructure your code with the approach I sketched above.

The editable part is an aside indeed, I was just mentioning why I find it useful in some production contexts and I agree it is not relevant for Azure functions.

@rgommers confusion on the goals of the PEP is exactly what I was worried about when raising this point about terminology.

When people hear “installer”, they’re definitely going to think of existing tools like “pip” or “conda”. They might still think of them after hearing “project installer”, but it’s still better that the newly specified category of tools get the qualifier.

Even a lock file PEP will run into this problem, since it will need a term for lock file consumers.

At the risk of being silly… does “installation manager” work for this category of tools?

I’ve filed a PR to withdraw this PEP, based on how I’m gauging the overall sentiment in this thread.

If the authors disagree with that assessment, please say so on the PR and I’d be happy to close it. :slight_smile:

Sorry for the deleted post. Discourse served me up this thread as if it were new. I wrote a detailed response. But of course it is an old thread with a new comment saying, “let’s withdraw this PEP”. My response is not relevant. My response archived off-server. Post deleted.

The aforementioned PR has now been merged, which marked this PEP as Withdrawn.

1 Like