[Python-Dev] Inclusion of lz4 bindings in stdlib?
On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 13:29, Steven D'Aprano <steve at pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 10:43:04AM -0800, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
> > PyPI makes getting more algorithms easy.
> Can we please stop over-generalising like this? PyPI makes getting
> more algorithms easy for *SOME* people. (Sorry for shouting, but you
> just pressed one of my buttons.)
Is shouting necessary to begin with, though? I understand people relying on
PyPI more and more can be troublesome for some and a sticking point, but if
you know it's a trigger for you then waiting until you didn't feel like
shouting seems like a reasonable course of action while still getting your
> PyPI might as well not exist for those who cannot, for technical or
> policy reasons, install addition software beyond the std lib on the
> computers they use. (I hesitate to say "their computers".)
> In many school or corporate networks, installing unapproved software can
> get you expelled or fired. And getting approval may be effectively
> impossible, or take months of considerable effort navigating some
> complex bureaucratic process.
> This is not an argument either for or against adding LZ4, I have no
> opinion either way.
> But it is a reminder that "just get it from PyPI"
> represents an extremely privileged position that not all Python users
> are capable of taking, and we shouldn't be so blase about abandoning
> those who can't to future std lib improvements.
We have never really had a discussion about how we want to guide the stdlib
going forward (e.g. how much does PyPI influence things, focus/theme,
etc.). Maybe we should consider finally having that discussion once the
governance model is chosen and before we consider adding a new module as
things like people's inability to access PyPI come up pretty consistently
(e.g. I know Paul Moore also brings this up regularly).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...