Plucking this out of Graceful cooperation between external and Python package managers (PEP 668):
I’ve been thinking about this for a few days now, and have now had multiple people reach out with a similar concern – the title of this PEP is too-broad and doesn’t communicate what exactly the PEP does.
Here’s some alternative title suggestions:
- Protected “externally managed” environments with Python package managers
- Marking Python base environments as “externally managed”
- Separation of environments managed by external package managers and Python package managers
I read the PEP, here’s some additional suggestions:
- “Discretizing package manager environments”
- “Delineating a border between cooperative package managers”
- "If they outlaw
sudo pip install, only outlaws will have
sudo pip install"
I like all the ones @pradyunsg suggested, my number one pick would be Marking Python base environments as “externally managed”.
The third one from @dustin is good too (if perhaps a bit too un-serious to win the day). The first two are also too general, like the current title. I would interpret those as dealing with dependency resolution rather than only with install permissions.
Of the options given, I’d also suggest going with
as it read the clearest and most direct to me about what the PEP was actually about, and was also the most concise and straightforward.
I mean, Python does try to retain a bit of the laconic, humerous, quirky spirit of its namesake, and PEPs aren’t really an exception—as a PEP editor, I wouldn’t object on that grounds, but the alternative is a lot more specific as to the actual mechanism proposed by the PEP, as opposed to just its intended downstream effect (which was the source of vagueness in the original title). Or maybe I’m just no fun, heh.