Ceci n'est pas une -EPIPE

Life as a F/OSS Zealot, Debianite, Pythonista and Lisper

Musings about Debian and Python

by

Paul Tagliamonte

On a regular basis, I find myself the odd-man-out when it comes to talking about how to work with Python on Debian systems. I'm going to write this and post it so that I might be able to point people at my thoughts without having to write the same email in response to each thread that pops up.

Turns out I don't fit in with the Debian hardliners (which is to say, the mindset that pip sucks and shouldn't exist), nor do I fit in with the Python hardliners (which is to say apt and dpkg are out of date, and neither have a place on a Development machine).

I think our discourse on this topic has become petty and stupid in general. Let's all try to step back and drop a bit of the attitude.

pip doesn't suck, and neither does apt.

The truth is, both sides are wrong. As with any subject, the real answer here is much more nuanced than either side presents it. I'm going to try and present my opinion on this, in the way that both my Pythonista self and my Debianite self see the issue. Hopefully I can keep this short, to the point, and caked with logic.

The case for dpkg (the Debianite in me)

In defense of dpkg and apt, imagine having to install python-gnome2 on all your systems when you install. It'd be hell on earth. Imagine having a user try to do this. It's insane to assume that end-users will be using pip for this purpose.

pip is fun and all, but it's also installing 100% untrusted code to your system (perhaps as root, if you're using pip with sudo for some reason), and hasn't been reviewed for software freeness, which is something Debian (and Debian users) take seriously. This isn't even to mention the hell that pip wreaks on dpkg controlled files / packages.

Try to remember how much of your system running (yes, right now) is running because of Python or Python modules. Try to imagine how much of a pain in the ass it'd be if you couldn't boot into GNOME to use nm-applet to connect to wifi to pip install something. I'm sure even the most extreme pip'er understands the need for Operating System level package management.

Debian also has a bigger problem scope - we're not maintaining a library in Debian for kicks, we're maintaining it so that end user applications may use the library. When we update something like Django, we have to make sure that we don't break anything using it (although, to be honest, the fact that we package webapps is an entire rant for later) before we get to update it to the newest release.

Hell, with a few coffees, I could automate the process of releasing a .deb with a new upstream release, 100% unattended. I won't, however, since this is an insane idea. Let's go over a brief list of things I do before uploading a new package:

  1. Review the entire codebase for simple mistakes.
  2. Review the entire codebase for license issues.
  3. Review the entire codebase for files without source, and track down (and include source for) any sourceless files (such as pickle files, etc).
  4. Get to know the upstream, get to know open bugs, write something using the lib, in case I need to debug later.
  5. Install the package.
  6. Test the package.
  7. Work out any Debian package issues (this is easy).

Now, a brief list of things I do before I update a package:

  1. Review the changes between the last uploaded version (in diff format, if it's sane, otherwise get the VCS and review), ensure all the above are still OK.
  2. Review for Debian-local issues (such as how it will upgrade, using piuparts, and adequate, etc).
  3. Check to make sure it won't break any reverse dependencies.
  4. Review for bugfixes that I might need to bring back to the stable release.
  5. Figure out if I should (or even can) backport the package, if API is stable.
  6. Review for bugs (upstream or in Debian) that I need to mention in the debian/changelog.

Clearly, this isn't a quick-and-dirty task. It's not a matter of getting a package updated (technically), it's a much more detailed process than that. This is also why Debian is so highly regarded for its technical virtuosity, and why the ISS decided to deploy Debian in space, despite other commercial distros such as Red Hat, or Ubuntu, and community distros, such as Fedora or Arch.

It's also not Debian's job to package the world in the archive. This is an insane task, and it's not Debian's place to do it. We introduce libraries as things need them, not because we wrote some new library that someone may find slightly useful at some point in the future. maybe.

Upstream developers and language communities (not only Python here) tend to lose sight of why we're doing this in the first place, which is our users. This isn't some sort of technical pissing contest to see who can distribute the software in the best way. Debian-folk always keep end users as our highest priority.

I quote the Debian Social Contract, when I say that Our priorities are our users and free software. No one's trying to get developers to use dpkg to create software. In fact, as you'll see below, I actively discourage using system modules for development.

The case for pip (the Pythonista in me)

In defense of pip, the idea that Debian will keep the latest versions of packages is insane. The idea that we can keep pace with upstream releases is nuts, and the idea that every upstream release on pypi is ready to ship is bananas. b-a-n-a-n-a-n-a-s. As a developer, I don't want to support every release, and I surely don't want other people depending on some random snapshot.

Often times, I'll put stuff up on pypi as a preview, or to release often, and solicit feedback without having to give out instructions on using a git checkout (it's also easier to have them try a version from pypi so I can cross-ref the git tag to reproduce issues when they file them)

pypi is easy, ubiquitous and works regardless of the platform, which means less of my development time is spent packaging stuff up for platforms I don't really care about (Arch, Fedora, OSX, Windows), even though I value feedback from users on those systems. The effort it takes to release something is limited to python setup.py sdist upload, and it's in a place (and in a shape) that anyone can use it without having 10 sets of platform-local instructions.

Even ignoring all the above, when I'm writing a new app or bit of code, I want to be sure I'm targeting the latest version of the code I depend on, so that future changes to API won't hit me as hard. By following along with my dependencies' development, I can be sure that my code breaks early, and breaks in development, not production. Upstreams also tend to not like bug reports against old branches, so ensuring I have the latest code from pypi means I can properly file bugs.

Lastly, I prefer virtualenv based setups for development, since I'm usually working on many things at once. This often means version mismatches in libraries, which brings in API changes (another whole rant here as well). I don't want to keep installing and uninstalling packages to switch between the two projects, and using a chroot(8) means a lot of overhead and that it's disconnected from my development environment / filesystem, so I resort to virtualenv to isolate my Development environment.

Final notes

I don't want to keep arguing about this. Just accept that the world's a big place and that there exist use-cases that both apt and pip need to exist and work in the way they're working now. At the very least, try and understand there exist smart people on both sides, and no one is trying to screw anyone over or keep their own little private club to themselves. Hopefully, going forward, we can make sure that the integration between these two tools gets better, not worse.

Help make this dream a reality. Contribute to a productive tone, not a destructive one. In short: