[Python-modules-team] Bug#551926: Bug#551926: cannot be installed together with pip or pip-python

Jonathan Yu jawnsy at cpan.org
Sat May 8 12:27:40 UTC 2010


On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 4:51 AM, Sandro Tosi <morph at debian.org> wrote:
>> I think the issue has been open for long enough without clear consensus.
>> Hence all packages should rename their /usr/bin/pip to something else and
>> document the difference vs upstream in README.Debian.
>> BTW, finding new names is hard, but choosing a 3 letter acronym is a
>> recipe for problems...

I don't want to keep beating this dead horse, but the position from
the Perl community is that:
1. We picked the name 'pip' first (the release of Perl's pip precedes
Python's pip)
2. The author of Python's pip was informed of the naming conflict on his blog
3. The author chose to ignore it

And now we're in this mess. So, either the author is a jerk, or he
just didn't think anyone would be installing both on the same system.
But as we have the 'pip' package name, I think it is fair we get the
'pip' script name.

I see no reason for Perl's pip to have to change its name, simply
because the author of Python's pip chose a name which was already in
use by someone else, and because the author was already informed that
something like this might happen, and chose to proceed anyway.

> of course I'm s little biased on this, but I'm attending Pycon italia
> and 2 talks (over the 4 given by know) already provide explicit
> references to pip and also about how to use it (that's as simple as
> "pip install <module>").

What happens if someone releases a script called 'sh' and wants to
install it to /usr/bin/sh? Despite being informed that obviously it
conflicts with peoples' shells. I consider this a similar problem, but
on a much smaller scale (obviously Perl's pip is not as popular as
sh), but the point is still valid.

> would be another source of frustration for the python community
> willing to use debian (and that community is already being harmed
> several times).

Rather than cripple Perl's pip, if it's really not in use by anyone, I
think we should just remove the pip package and let Python take over
the name and /usr/bin path. But if it is in use, then given the author
of the Python script had advance warning, I think the "Python
community" effectively did this harm to themselves.

I do not think it is unreasonable to think of script names the same as
module names, as: "on a first-come, first-served basis" -- it is the
responsibility of each author to do a search to make sure they are not
picking the same names as anyone else. Not only did he fail to do
adequate research, he failed to predict this would happen and change
the name accordingly.

In summary: if we do not need the Perl version, remove it. If we need
the Perl version, its name should stay as 'pip'. This decision should
be made irrespective of Python's pip, because Perl's pip came first
(so I think it deserves that privilege).



More information about the Python-modules-team mailing list