Mail archive

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

From: Sander Maijers <>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 11:22:32 +0200

These numbers do help to find out what Aports you could remove without
much objection. I've personally installed Python package Aports just
because they existed(!), favoring them over installing using pip and
making sure any cache files are cleaned. This does not mean I think it
is wise to use them in general. The numbers are just informative,
since the reason for this proposal is not mainly lack of popularity,
but the maintenance overhead of keeping too many Python package
Aports. Pip must first be installed for Python 2, BTW, another reason
for using Aports instead. My only independent motivation for
installing Python package OS packages is if they depend on native
libraries that could well be installed OS-wide separately and that you
may want to switch between, such as Numpy and a BLAS library. I do
that on Arch Linux. I think the latter should be the criterion for
keeping Python packages as Aports: only if they have significant
dependencies that are covered by Aports, that are ultimately not
Python packages themselves.

On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 12:07 AM, Kaarle Ritvanen
<> wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jun 2016, Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote:
>> ScrumpyJack has shared his (low traffic) mirror logs from past 12 weeks
>> and I poured it through some pipes. Barely 102 modules were ever
>> downloaded, where top 15 is:
>> This pretty much confirms my theory of unused modules and what should be
>> kept in repositories.
> I think this just proves that some modules are installed more often than
> others. The same is probably true for non-Python packages, but we
> generally do not remove packages because too few people use them.
> If the renaming from py-* to py2-* is absolutely necessary, surely that
> can easily be done using find, xargs, sed etc. regardless of the number of
> existing packages.
> BR,
> Kaarle
> ---
> Unsubscribe:
> Help:
> ---

Received on Thu Jun 09 2016 - 11:22:32 UTC