Mail archive

Re: [alpine-devel] Python 3 in Alpine 3.5

From: Jiri Horner <>
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 16:14:43 +0200

On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 12:12:28PM +0200, Natanael Copa wrote:
>On Thu, 02 Jun 2016 12:29:17 +0200
>Bart*omiej Piotrowski <> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> we already discussed Python 3 support at least 3 times. As we recently
>> released new stable series, edge is again open for all happy breakage
>> so let's make use of it.
>> Before I start though, I ran a simple grep on aports and it turns out
>> there are 575 packages providing various Python libraries. I think this
>> is much beyond our resources to keep all of them up to date, including
>> possible security fixes. Following recent Ruby example, I would love to
>> limit this set to only very popular libraries (Flask, Requests, etc) and
>> these that require to be patched to successfully build (numpy). I can
>> also
>> see an exception for all compiled libraries. The question is how to
>> measure
>> popularity; if that becomes a concern, I would rather drop all pure
>> Python
>> modules instead.
>The difference between python and ruby module packages is that python
>are much easier to package an maintain. Upgrading python packages is
>fast too, so I actually don't mind keeping then.
>Ruby packages on the other hand was almost impossible to maintain,
>which is why they got removed.

Have you considered integrating pip with apk? Like `apk add py-foo` would
invoke pip to install `foo` for you and manage upgrades too. I was using simple
script that did something similar, so I don't need to switch between apk and
pip and it was quite comfortable.

This way it'll be only needed to maintain packages that need patches and still
python packages would remain fist-class citizens and they would be upgraded with
system packages. Also packaged applications could declare dependencies on things
in PyPI easily.


Received on Fri Jun 03 2016 - 16:14:43 UTC