[sametmax]

I strongly agree but this can work now and is a big improvement over what we currently have. So while I would literally pay to see somebody work on a better package manager (which can generate exe, deb and use a conf file indead of .py), this is a good filler.

[X-Istence]

Why should it generate a deb file? How is this useful on anything but Debian based systems?

Why exe? How do you package libraries using this new tool you are envisioning?

[sametmax]

You do package lib the same way as before, although cargo like dependency handling would be a nice thing. Especially for upgrades.

But a good package manager should ALSO allow you to produce a:

- a stand alone executable for most OS.

- a standard package for major OS (msi, deb, snap, rpm, dmg, etc).

Doing that right now with Python requires you to setup stuff like nuikta and the like. It works but it's much harder than it should be.

[snuxoll]

debhelper pretty much automates the process of packaging any standard distutils or setuptools package, Red Hat distributions have templates for packaging Python libraries as well (and rpmdev-newspec python-mypackage will automatically generate an appropriate .spec file).

Windows and OS X are always a pain in the ass, but that's more an issue of the platforms lacking in package management than anything else.

[sametmax]

See my point ? There is a way to do it, it's just a pain.

Now pipenv centralize stuff we were doing anyway.

We should have a tool to centralize those as well.

[snuxoll]

I would hardly call it a pain, it takes me all of 3 minutes to write a .spec for most python packages and from there it's basically 'tito release'. Sure, if I wanted to package for debian-based distributions it'd take a little more time, but it's worth it to make a quality package that a distribution itself can decide to pick up (packagers love other people doing the work for them, though they won't refuse doing it themselves) with minimal effort.

[sametmax]

3 minutes because you know how.