PEP 668: Marking Python base environments as "externally managed"

[pf_moore (Paul Moore)]

@uranusjr

I believe the intention is to move PEP 668 and bpo-43976 independently, since the former sill provides much benefit without the latter, and the latter does not need an Informational PEP (although it may be nice to have one for its own describing why and how distros may use the feature).

I think an informational PEP, described explicitly as a core Python PEP rather than “just” a packaging PEP, and ratified by the SC, would be useful here.

It could describe all of the machinery involved, and give a full description of what 3rd parties maintaining any sort of “system package manager” tool need to do in order to interoperate with the Python ecosystem.

It wouldn’t cover just Linux distros at that point - it would also cover cygwin, conda, msys2, homebrew and even things like embedded systems that want Python packages to work cleanly with their toolsets.

An alternative to a PEP would be a section in the Python docs (maybe under “Setup and Usage” although that’s more about the user experience than the redistributor experience). But traditionally I think informational PEPs have been the vehicle for this sort of document.