Today I felt like summing up my opinion on a topic that was discussed this year on the Python mailing lists, at PyCon-FR, at EuroPython and EuroSciPy... packaging software! Let us discuss the two main use cases.
The first use case is to maintain computer systems in production. A trait of production systems, is that they can not afford failures and are often deployed on a large scale. It leaves little room for manually fixing problems. Either the installation process works or the system fails. Reaching that level of quality takes a lot of work.
The second use case is to facilitate the life of software developers and computer users by making it easy for them to give a try to new pieces of software without much work.
The first use case has to be addressed as a configuration management problem. There is no way around it. The best way I know of managing the configuration of a computer system is called Debian. Its package format and its tool chain provide a very extensive and efficient set of features for system development and maintenance. Of course it is not perfect and there are missing bits and open issues that could be tackled, like the dependencies between hardware and software. For example, nothing will prevent you from installing on your Debian system a version of a driver that conflicts with the version of the chip found in your hardware. That problem could be solved, but I do not think the Debian project is there yet and I do not count it as a reason to reject Debian since I have not seen any other competitor at the level as Debian.
The second use case is kind of a trap, for it concerns most computer users and most of those users are either convinced the first use case has nothing in common with their problem or convinced that the solution is easy and requires little work.
The situation is made more complicated by the fact that most of those users never had the chance to use a system with proper package management tools. They simply do not know the difference and do not feel like they are missing when using their system-that-comes-with-a-windowing-system-included.
Since many software developers have never had to maintain computer systems in production (often considered a lower sysadmin job) and never developed packages for computer systems that are maintained in production, they tend to think that the operating system and their software are perfectly decoupled. They have no problem trying to create a new layer on top of existing operating systems and transforming an operating system issue (managing software installation) into a programming langage issue (see CPAN, Python eggs and so many others).
Creating a sub-system specific to a language and hosting it on an operating system works well as long as the language boundary is not crossed and there is no competition between the sub-system and the system itself. In the Python world, distutils, setuptools, eggs and the like more or less work with pure Python code. They create a square wheel that was made round years ago by dpkg+apt-get and others, but they help a lot of their users do something they would not know how to do another way.
A wall is quickly hit though, as the approach becomes overly complex as soon as they try to depend on things that do not belong to their Python sub-system. What if your application needs a database? What if your application needs to link to libraries? What if your application needs to reuse data from or provide data to other applications? What if your application needs to work on different architectures?
The software developers that never had to maintain computer systems in production wish these tasks were easy. Unfortunately they are not easy and cannot be. As I said, there is no way around configuration management for the one who wants a stable system. Configuration management requires both project management work and software development work. One can have a system where packaging software is less work, but that comes at the price of stability and reduced functionnality and ease of maintenance.
Since none of the two use cases will disappear any time soon, the only solution to the problem is to share as much data as possible between the different tools and let each one decide how to install software on his computer system.
Some links to continue your readings on the same topic:
- The every Linux distribution should have the same package manager fallacy by D. Cournapeau
- Python Packaging: a few observations and a cabal for a solution by D. Cournapeau
- Words on distribute, distutils and PEP 376, 386, 345 by Tarek Ziadé
- Looking for a Windows Package Manager on Logilab's blog