# Proposal: overrides for installers

**URL:** <https://discuss.python.org/t/proposal-overrides-for-installers/23666>\
**Category:** Packaging\
**Created:** [February 8, 2023, 8:25pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/proposal-overrides-for-installers/23666 "2023-02-08T20:25:56Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 6

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![sinoroc](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/discuss.python.org/sinoroc/32/1607_2.png) [@sinoroc](https://discuss.python.org/u/sinoroc)\
**Post date:** [March 1, 2023, 10:20pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/proposal-overrides-for-installers/23666/6 "2023-03-01T22:20:09Z")

</div>

> [@steve.dower](#):
>
> This would be useful for implementing [PEP 708 - Extending the Repository API to Mitigate Dependency Confusion Attacks](https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-708-extending-the-repository-api-to-mitigate-dependency-confusion-attacks/24179), which also needs some kind of override file.

Yes. Since I first read the Google document that is now _PEP 708_, I have wanted to investigate if and how this proposal can be rewritten to accommodate for it, maybe take over some ideas from the file format suggested in the Google document. But I have not gotten to it yet.

Also [this](https://discuss.python.org/t/adding-a-global-config-to-specify-package-indexes/8599/) came back up, and I want to re-investigate it as well.

> [@FFY00](#):
>
> My only worry is how common this use-case is.

The proposal contains many links to use cases taken from questions I have seen on StackOverflow. But I do not know if it is a good enough way of measuring how often this proposal would be used if it were to be implemented.

> [@FFY00](#):
>
> The config design for your `overrides.toml` might be a bit tricky

For sure there are plenty rough corners in this first version, I would expect some compromises to be made to keep things approachable.

> [@FFY00](#):
>
> I wonder if a Python file where you can provide a “transform” method wouldn’t just be a bit better?

I see what you mean. My first reaction is that I feel like for this proposal to be useful it should target inexperienced Python users. I feel like more experienced users are able to setup other solutions for the targeted use cases (examples: setup a `simpleindex`, rebuild wheels, fork and fix a poorly packaged library). That is why I feel like a static configuration file is a better fit than a script. But I might be looking at this from the wrong angle.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discuss.python.org/t/proposal-overrides-for-installers/23666)._