Re: Python pip

[Alejandro Hernandez <alejandro.hernandez@linux.intel.com>]

On 09/11/15 10:17, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> On Monday 09 November 2015 10:11:30 Alejandro Hernandez wrote:
>> On 05/11/15 08:25, Gary Thomas wrote:
>>> On 2015-11-05 07:14, Paul Eggleton wrote:
>>>> Hi Gary,
>>>>
>>>> On Thursday 05 November 2015 05:39:21 Gary Thomas wrote:
>>>>> Just curious, does anyone know why OE-core has python3-pip
>>>>> but python-pip is relegated to meta-oe?
>>>> I think it has to do with pip being supplied as part of the standard
>>>> python 3
>>>> distribution from 3.4 onwards. I think for simplicity's sake it might be
>>>> argued that python-pip could be in the same place though.
>> Yes, in fact, python3-pip was included on oe-core after the upgrade to
>> python3.4 since it's now a requirement, I agree, we probably should
>> include python-pip on oe-core too
>>
>>> Thanks, I'll consider sending a patch set for that.
>>>
>>> Sadly, at this point, both packages can't be installed at the
>>> same time as they both call the result "/usr/bin/pip".  Maybe
>>> in keeping with the python/python3 naming, the python3 version
>>> should be installed as pip3?
>> python3-pip recipe had to be created to avoid an issue with the default
>> pip installation by python3.4, its now handled by distutils3, if its
>> only a matter of changing the binary name afterwards from pip to pip3 I
>> see no problem doing this, I am hoping this solves it, but just
>> mentioning that we already had some issues with this, because of the
>> "defaults" python3 expects
> My question would be would renaming it to "pip3" be consistent with how this
> situation is handled on mainstream distributions?
>
> Cheers,
> Paul
Apparently... yes, at least it looks like it on Ubuntu-based distros, 
they use pip -> pip2 and also another binary for pip3.