Welcome to Software Development on Codidact!
Will you help us build our independent community of developers helping developers? We're small and trying to grow. We welcome questions about all aspects of software development, from design to code to QA and more. Got questions? Got answers? Got code you'd like someone to review? Please join us.
Post History
Background Many Python programs now recommend installing with pipx, and there is a sense that you shouldn't install with pip anymore, you should use tools like pipx. Main Question However, what ...
#7: Post edited
by
meta user
·
2023-09-09T18:21:24Z (over 1 year ago)
made headings, added a comma
What is the point of pipx?
- Many Python programs now recommend installing with pipx, and there is a sense that you shouldn't install with pip anymore, you should use tools like pipx.
- However, what does pipx actually do that makes it such a preferred alternative to pip?
I checked their [docs](https://pypa.github.io/pipx/) and what I found doesn't really make sense. I don't want to write a long rebuttal, but in sum:- * pipx is described as a *package manager*, but package managers install files in system locations whereas pipx installs them in user locations. Also, package managers already have `python-...` packages where it makes sense.
- * It mentions that unlike pip, it is specifically for CLI apps. But what exactly does pip not do? AFAIK executable packages just have a wrapper script in `~/.local/bin/` that calls them. This doesn't seem worth a whole program.
* It talks about PyPi as an "app store", which sounds weird. Yes people can and do distribute on PyPi, but there are major differences which pipx hardly closes.- I do see that it mentions isolating envs. I can see how it is not straightforward with pip to install each CLI app in a venv, but also make it available in PATH. So is that all pipx is, CLI apps in venv? This seems like a rather inefficient way to handle packaging (see also "static link everything").
- Background
- -
- Many Python programs now recommend installing with pipx, and there is a sense that you shouldn't install with pip anymore, you should use tools like pipx.
- Main Question
- -
- However, what does pipx actually do that makes it such a preferred alternative to pip?
- Thoughts
- -
- I checked their [docs](https://pypa.github.io/pipx/) and what I found doesn't really make sense. In sum:
- * pipx is described as a *package manager*, but package managers install files in system locations whereas pipx installs them in user locations. Also, package managers already have `python-...` packages where it makes sense.
- * It mentions that unlike pip, it is specifically for CLI apps. But what exactly does pip not do? AFAIK executable packages just have a wrapper script in `~/.local/bin/` that calls them. This doesn't seem worth a whole program.
- * It talks about PyPi as an "app store", which sounds weird. Yes, people can and do distribute on PyPi, but there are major differences which pipx hardly closes.
- I do see that it mentions isolating envs. I can see how it is not straightforward with pip to install each CLI app in a venv, but also make it available in PATH. So is that all pipx is, CLI apps in venv? This seems like a rather inefficient way to handle packaging (see also "static link everything").
#6: Post edited
by
matthewsnyder
·
2023-08-18T02:34:46Z (over 1 year ago)
- Many Python programs now recommend installing with pipx, and there is a sense that you shouldn't install with pip anymore, you should use tools like pipx.
- However, what does pipx actually do that makes it such a preferred alternative to pip?
- I checked their [docs](https://pypa.github.io/pipx/) and what I found doesn't really make sense. I don't want to write a long rebuttal, but in sum:
- * pipx is described as a *package manager*, but package managers install files in system locations whereas pipx installs them in user locations. Also, package managers already have `python-...` packages where it makes sense.
- * It mentions that unlike pip, it is specifically for CLI apps. But what exactly does pip not do? AFAIK executable packages just have a wrapper script in `~/.local/bin/` that calls them. This doesn't seem worth a whole program.
- * It talks about PyPi as an "app store", which sounds weird. Yes people can and do distribute on PyPi, but there are major differences which pipx hardly closes.
I do see that it mentions isolating envs. I can see how it is not straightforward with pip to install each CLI app in a venv, but also make it available in PATH. So is that all pipx is, CLI apps in venv? This seems like a rather inefficient way to handle packaging (see also "static link everything).
- Many Python programs now recommend installing with pipx, and there is a sense that you shouldn't install with pip anymore, you should use tools like pipx.
- However, what does pipx actually do that makes it such a preferred alternative to pip?
- I checked their [docs](https://pypa.github.io/pipx/) and what I found doesn't really make sense. I don't want to write a long rebuttal, but in sum:
- * pipx is described as a *package manager*, but package managers install files in system locations whereas pipx installs them in user locations. Also, package managers already have `python-...` packages where it makes sense.
- * It mentions that unlike pip, it is specifically for CLI apps. But what exactly does pip not do? AFAIK executable packages just have a wrapper script in `~/.local/bin/` that calls them. This doesn't seem worth a whole program.
- * It talks about PyPi as an "app store", which sounds weird. Yes people can and do distribute on PyPi, but there are major differences which pipx hardly closes.
- I do see that it mentions isolating envs. I can see how it is not straightforward with pip to install each CLI app in a venv, but also make it available in PATH. So is that all pipx is, CLI apps in venv? This seems like a rather inefficient way to handle packaging (see also "static link everything").
#5: Post edited
by
matthewsnyder
·
2023-08-18T02:33:53Z (over 1 year ago)
- Many Python programs now recommend installing with pipx, and there is a sense that you shouldn't install with pip anymore, you should use tools like pipx.
- However, what does pipx actually do that makes it such a preferred alternative to pip?
- I checked their [docs](https://pypa.github.io/pipx/) and what I found doesn't really make sense. I don't want to write a long rebuttal, but in sum:
- * pipx is described as a *package manager*, but package managers install files in system locations whereas pipx installs them in user locations. Also, package managers already have `python-...` packages where it makes sense.
- * It mentions that unlike pip, it is specifically for CLI apps. But what exactly does pip not do? AFAIK executable packages just have a wrapper script in `~/.local/bin/` that calls them. This doesn't seem worth a whole program.
- * It talks about PyPi as an "app store", which sounds weird. Yes people can and do distribute on PyPi, but there are major differences which pipx hardly closes.
I do see that it mentions isolating envs. I can see how it is not straightforward with pip to install each CLI app in a venv, but also add it to the PATH. So is that all pipx is, CLI apps in venv? This seems like a rather inefficient way to handle packaging (see also "static link everything).
- Many Python programs now recommend installing with pipx, and there is a sense that you shouldn't install with pip anymore, you should use tools like pipx.
- However, what does pipx actually do that makes it such a preferred alternative to pip?
- I checked their [docs](https://pypa.github.io/pipx/) and what I found doesn't really make sense. I don't want to write a long rebuttal, but in sum:
- * pipx is described as a *package manager*, but package managers install files in system locations whereas pipx installs them in user locations. Also, package managers already have `python-...` packages where it makes sense.
- * It mentions that unlike pip, it is specifically for CLI apps. But what exactly does pip not do? AFAIK executable packages just have a wrapper script in `~/.local/bin/` that calls them. This doesn't seem worth a whole program.
- * It talks about PyPi as an "app store", which sounds weird. Yes people can and do distribute on PyPi, but there are major differences which pipx hardly closes.
- I do see that it mentions isolating envs. I can see how it is not straightforward with pip to install each CLI app in a venv, but also make it available in PATH. So is that all pipx is, CLI apps in venv? This seems like a rather inefficient way to handle packaging (see also "static link everything).
#4: Post edited
by
matthewsnyder
·
2023-08-18T02:33:16Z (over 1 year ago)
- Many Python programs now recommend installing with pipx, and there is a sense that you shouldn't install with pip anymore, you should use tools like pipx.
- However, what does pipx actually do that makes it such a preferred alternative to pip?
- I checked their [docs](https://pypa.github.io/pipx/) and what I found doesn't really make sense. I don't want to write a long rebuttal, but in sum:
- * pipx is described as a *package manager*, but package managers install files in system locations whereas pipx installs them in user locations. Also, package managers already have `python-...` packages where it makes sense.
- * It mentions that unlike pip, it is specifically for CLI apps. But what exactly does pip not do? AFAIK executable packages just have a wrapper script in `~/.local/bin/` that calls them. This doesn't seem worth a whole program.
* It talks about PyPi as an "app store", which sounds weird. Yes people can and do distribute app store, but there are major differences which pipx hardly closes.- I do see that it mentions isolating envs. I can see how it is not straightforward with pip to install each CLI app in a venv, but also add it to the PATH. So is that all pipx is, CLI apps in venv? This seems like a rather inefficient way to handle packaging (see also "static link everything).
- Many Python programs now recommend installing with pipx, and there is a sense that you shouldn't install with pip anymore, you should use tools like pipx.
- However, what does pipx actually do that makes it such a preferred alternative to pip?
- I checked their [docs](https://pypa.github.io/pipx/) and what I found doesn't really make sense. I don't want to write a long rebuttal, but in sum:
- * pipx is described as a *package manager*, but package managers install files in system locations whereas pipx installs them in user locations. Also, package managers already have `python-...` packages where it makes sense.
- * It mentions that unlike pip, it is specifically for CLI apps. But what exactly does pip not do? AFAIK executable packages just have a wrapper script in `~/.local/bin/` that calls them. This doesn't seem worth a whole program.
- * It talks about PyPi as an "app store", which sounds weird. Yes people can and do distribute on PyPi, but there are major differences which pipx hardly closes.
- I do see that it mentions isolating envs. I can see how it is not straightforward with pip to install each CLI app in a venv, but also add it to the PATH. So is that all pipx is, CLI apps in venv? This seems like a rather inefficient way to handle packaging (see also "static link everything).
#3: Post edited
by
matthewsnyder
·
2023-08-18T02:32:34Z (over 1 year ago)
- Many Python programs now recommend installing with pipx, and there is a sense that you shouldn't install with pip anymore, you should use tools like pipx.
- However, what does pipx actually do that makes it such a preferred alternative to pip?
- I checked their [docs](https://pypa.github.io/pipx/) and what I found doesn't really make sense. I don't want to write a long rebuttal, but in sum:
* pipx is described as a *package manager*, but package managers install files in system locations whereas pipx installs them in user locations. Also, package managers already have `python-` packages where it makes sense.- * It mentions that unlike pip, it is specifically for CLI apps. But what exactly does pip not do? AFAIK executable packages just have a wrapper script in `~/.local/bin/` that calls them. This doesn't seem worth a whole program.
- * It talks about PyPi as an "app store", which sounds weird. Yes people can and do distribute app store, but there are major differences which pipx hardly closes.
- I do see that it mentions isolating envs. I can see how it is not straightforward with pip to install each CLI app in a venv, but also add it to the PATH. So is that all pipx is, CLI apps in venv? This seems like a rather inefficient way to handle packaging (see also "static link everything).
- Many Python programs now recommend installing with pipx, and there is a sense that you shouldn't install with pip anymore, you should use tools like pipx.
- However, what does pipx actually do that makes it such a preferred alternative to pip?
- I checked their [docs](https://pypa.github.io/pipx/) and what I found doesn't really make sense. I don't want to write a long rebuttal, but in sum:
- * pipx is described as a *package manager*, but package managers install files in system locations whereas pipx installs them in user locations. Also, package managers already have `python-...` packages where it makes sense.
- * It mentions that unlike pip, it is specifically for CLI apps. But what exactly does pip not do? AFAIK executable packages just have a wrapper script in `~/.local/bin/` that calls them. This doesn't seem worth a whole program.
- * It talks about PyPi as an "app store", which sounds weird. Yes people can and do distribute app store, but there are major differences which pipx hardly closes.
- I do see that it mentions isolating envs. I can see how it is not straightforward with pip to install each CLI app in a venv, but also add it to the PATH. So is that all pipx is, CLI apps in venv? This seems like a rather inefficient way to handle packaging (see also "static link everything).
#2: Post edited
by
matthewsnyder
·
2023-08-18T02:32:16Z (over 1 year ago)
- Many Python programs now recommend installing with pipx, and there is a sense that you shouldn't install with pip anymore, you should use tools like pipx.
- However, what does pipx actually do that makes it such a preferred alternative to pip?
- I checked their [docs](https://pypa.github.io/pipx/) and what I found doesn't really make sense. I don't want to write a long rebuttal, but in sum:
* pipx is described as a *package manager*, but package manager install files in system locations whereas pipx installs them in user locations. Also, package managers already have `python-` packages where it makes sense.- * It mentions that unlike pip, it is specifically for CLI apps. But what exactly does pip not do? AFAIK executable packages just have a wrapper script in `~/.local/bin/` that calls them. This doesn't seem worth a whole program.
- * It talks about PyPi as an "app store", which sounds weird. Yes people can and do distribute app store, but there are major differences which pipx hardly closes.
- I do see that it mentions isolating envs. I can see how it is not straightforward with pip to install each CLI app in a venv, but also add it to the PATH. So is that all pipx is, CLI apps in venv? This seems like a rather inefficient way to handle packaging (see also "static link everything).
- Many Python programs now recommend installing with pipx, and there is a sense that you shouldn't install with pip anymore, you should use tools like pipx.
- However, what does pipx actually do that makes it such a preferred alternative to pip?
- I checked their [docs](https://pypa.github.io/pipx/) and what I found doesn't really make sense. I don't want to write a long rebuttal, but in sum:
- * pipx is described as a *package manager*, but package managers install files in system locations whereas pipx installs them in user locations. Also, package managers already have `python-` packages where it makes sense.
- * It mentions that unlike pip, it is specifically for CLI apps. But what exactly does pip not do? AFAIK executable packages just have a wrapper script in `~/.local/bin/` that calls them. This doesn't seem worth a whole program.
- * It talks about PyPi as an "app store", which sounds weird. Yes people can and do distribute app store, but there are major differences which pipx hardly closes.
- I do see that it mentions isolating envs. I can see how it is not straightforward with pip to install each CLI app in a venv, but also add it to the PATH. So is that all pipx is, CLI apps in venv? This seems like a rather inefficient way to handle packaging (see also "static link everything).
#1: Initial revision
by
matthewsnyder
·
2023-08-18T02:31:38Z (over 1 year ago)
What is the point of pipx?
Many Python programs now recommend installing with pipx, and there is a sense that you shouldn't install with pip anymore, you should use tools like pipx. However, what does pipx actually do that makes it such a preferred alternative to pip? I checked their [docs](https://pypa.github.io/pipx/) and what I found doesn't really make sense. I don't want to write a long rebuttal, but in sum: * pipx is described as a *package manager*, but package manager install files in system locations whereas pipx installs them in user locations. Also, package managers already have `python-` packages where it makes sense. * It mentions that unlike pip, it is specifically for CLI apps. But what exactly does pip not do? AFAIK executable packages just have a wrapper script in `~/.local/bin/` that calls them. This doesn't seem worth a whole program. * It talks about PyPi as an "app store", which sounds weird. Yes people can and do distribute app store, but there are major differences which pipx hardly closes. I do see that it mentions isolating envs. I can see how it is not straightforward with pip to install each CLI app in a venv, but also add it to the PATH. So is that all pipx is, CLI apps in venv? This seems like a rather inefficient way to handle packaging (see also "static link everything).