python-peps/pep-0262.txt

PEP: 262
Title: A Database of Installed Python Packages
Version: $Revision$
Author: A.M. Kuchling <akuchlin@mems-exchange.org>
Type: Standards Track
Created: 08-Jul-2001
Status: Draft
Post-History: 

Introduction

    This PEP describes a format for a database of Python packages 
    installed on a system.


Requirements

    We need a way to figure out what packages, and what versions of
    those packages, are installed on a system.  We want to provide
    features similar to CPAN, APT, or RPM.  Required use cases that
    should be supported are:
 
        * Is package X on a system?  
        * What version of package X is installed?
        * Where can the new version of package X be found?  
          XXX Does this mean "a home page where the user can go and
          find a download link", or "a place where a program can find
          the newest version?"  Perhaps both...
        * What files did package X put on my system?
        * What package did the file x/y/z.py come from?
        * Has anyone modified x/y/z.py locally?


Database Location

    The database lives in a bunch of files under
    <prefix>/lib/python<version>/install/.  This location will be
    called INSTALLDB through the remainder of this PEP.

    XXX is that a good location?  What effect does platform-dependent code
    vs. platform-independent code have on this?

    The structure of the database is deliberately kept simple; each
    file in this directory or its subdirectories (if any) describes a
    single package.

    The rationale for scanning subdirectories is that we can move to a
    directory-based indexing scheme if the package directory contains
    too many entries.  That is, instead of INSTALLDB/Numeric, we
    could switch to INSTALLDB/N/Nu/Numeric or some similar scheme.

    XXX how much do we care about performance?  Do we really need to
    use an anydbm file or something similar?

    XXX is the actual filename important?  Let's say the installation
    data for PIL is in the file INSTALLDB/Numeric.  Is this OK?  When
    we want to figure out if Numeric is installed, do we want to open
    a single file, or have to scan them all?  Note that for
    human-interface purposes, we'll often have to scan all the
    packages anyway, for a case-insensitive or keyword search.


Database Contents

    Each file in INSTALLDB or its subdirectories describes a single
    package, and has the following contents:

        An initial line listing the sections in this file, separated
        by whitespace.  Currently this will always be 'PKG-INFO
        FILES'.  This is for future-proofing; if we add a new section,
        for example to list documentation files, then we'd add a DOCS
        section and list it in the contents.  Sections are always
        separated by blank lines.  XXX too simple?

        [PKG-INFO section] An initial set of RFC-822 headers
        containing the package information for a file, as described in
        PEP 241, "Metadata for Python Software Packages".

        A blank line indicating the end of the PKG-INFO section.

        An entry for each file installed by the package.  
        XXX Are .pyc and .pyo files in this list?  What about compiled
        .so files?  AMK thinks "no" and "yes", respectively.

    Each file's entry is a single tab-delimited line that contains the
    following fields: 
    XXX should each file entry be all on one line and
    tab-delimited?  More RFC-822 headers?  AMK thinks tab-delimited
    seems sufficent.

        * The file's size
 
        * XXX do we need to store permissions?  The owner/group?  

        * An MD5 digest of the file, written in hex.  (XXX All 16
          bytes of the digest seems unnecessary; first 8 bytes only,
          maybe?  Is a zlib.crc32() hash sufficient?)

        * The file's full path, as installed on the system.  (XXX
          should it be relative to sys.prefix, or sys.prefix +
          '/lib/python<version>?'  If so, full paths are still needed;
          consider a package that installs a startup script such as
          /etc/init.d/zope)
          
        * XXX some sort of type indicator, to indicate whether this is
          a Python module, binary module, documentation file, config
          file?  Do we need this?

    A package that uses the Distutils for installation will
    automatically update the database.  Packages that roll their own
    installation 

    XXX what's the relationship between this database and the RPM or
    DPKG database?  I'm tempted to make the Python database completely
    optional; a distributor can preserve the interface of the package
    management tool and replace it with their own wrapper on top of
    their own package manager.  (XXX but how would the Distutils know
    that, and not bother to update the Python database?)

    
Deliverables
  
    Patches to the Distutils that 1) implement a InstallationDatabase
    class, 2) Update the database when a new package is installed.  3)
    a simple package management tool, features to be added to this
    PEP.  (Or a separate PEP?)  


References

    [1] Michael Muller's patch (posted to the Distutils-SIG around 28
        Dec 1999) generates a list of installed files.


Acknowledgements

    Ideas for this PEP originally came from postings by Greg Ward,
    Fred Drake, Mats Wichmann, and others.

    Many changes and rewrites to this document were suggested by the
    readers of the Distutils SIG.   


Copyright

    This document has been placed in the public domain.


Local Variables:
mode: indented-text
indent-tabs-mode: nil
End: