Everyone on the Python Planet is probably already familiar with Peter Fein’s recent article about PyPI.
Everyone on the Python Planet is probably already familiar with Peter Fein’s recent article about PyPI use (or lack thereof). But in case not, particularly striking was the number of folks who joined the “PyPI bashing” in the comments. In fact, it has inspired me to write this post “in defense of PyPI”. I would like to offer the Python community a summary of what I think are the general criticisms, along with my responses as a “sysadmin / developer type”.
First let me say this: I love PyPI! And I agree with Peter, if your package isn’t on PyPI it “doesn’t exist”. I wouldn’t put it quite like that; but I would say it’s fairly important if you are publishing open source Python code, to consider uploading it to the Python Package Index.
Believe it or not, the general Python community is interested in seeing your code. Whether to use it for an example, or to avoid reinventing the wheel, or whatever the reason; we’d like a chance to see your code. But if you don’t publish it to PyPI, we may never get that chance!
For better or worse, PyPI is the canonical place on Earth for Python packages. It’s the CPAN of Python. I understand that not everyone is 100% comfortable with this, but that doesn’t make it any less true. If you accept that “open source is good”, and that “Python rules”, then you simply must take this next leap of faith: “PyPI is the place for Python packages”.
Moving on, why else should you consider uploading your packages to PyPI?
Another thing that struck me is the number of folks who (appear to) confuse “version control” with “distribution”. If I’m not mistaken, Launchpad, Github, and Bitbucket are primarily designed for Bazaar, Git, and Mercurial hosting respectively. These sites can host your distribution tarballs, but they certainly weren’t designed and built to do so. Rather, they were designed and built to host your source code.
In some cases, a project may wish to host it’s own distribution server. Whether it be for redundancy (although PyPI has begun to tackle this) or “branding” or other reasons, I would argue this is the preferred way of handling it: in addition to uploading to PyPI, not in place of it.
Ahem… we get it. The situation with easy_install is “less than ideal”. But this is something to be fixed, not avoided. If you are receiving too many support requests, may I suggest simply telling people not to use easy_install. Or, if the problem is proper packaging, learn how to test your packages before uploading them. Due to the large number of screwed up releases I’ve made, I’ve come to rely on alocal PyPI and a virtualenv to test installations. Others use even simpler methods. And with tools like mkrelease, it’s easy to upload your package to multiple PyPI locations with just a single command (although leaping-tall-buildings-in-a single-bound is not yet supported.)
The point is, please consider helping the community fix the problem rather than simply avoiding it. There are folks actively trying to improve the situation right now.
Let’s see, what else?
Over the years I’ve seen various and sundry criticisms of the PyPI user interface. Fine. I have not looked into the current development process, but I assume the author/maintainers would be open to some constructive criticism and/or development assistance.
It doesn’t have to be Github-sexy to be useful. If you would like to report a bug or feature request, do it here (at least, I think that is the right place.)
I hope this convinces at least some folks to consider uploading their packages to PyPI. If it doesn’t, please let me know why in the comments.
Did you enjoy reading this article? If so, please consider `helping me help Plone`_.