Using pip or python-installer in packages

[KevinCrrl]

My question arises because ArchWiki says that for Python packages, pip should not be used as a method in PKGBUILD, and it is recommended to use python-installer or setuptools.

The question is precisely: Why do we use pip in blackarch for packages that could use the recommended methods?

I know that the pip method works and that it has the necessary arguments to avoid breaking the system, but I also consider what is most ideal, since pip is a very complete manager and using it only as an installation method is more in line with the task of python-installer.

Now, I'm not asking to change all Python packages to use installer; I know it's a big job just to follow a standard, but I would like to help some packages, say the most used ones or those with the most recent updates and that are compatible with the recommended methods, use installer instead of pip, since I haven't dared to make the change without discussing it here so that everything is well understood.

Thanks for any responses, best regards.

[noraj]

The pip install + tons of args we use in package() (https://github.com/BlackArch/blackarch-pkgbuilds/blob/master/python/PKGBUILD-python-PEP517-pip) is the previous recommended way for PEP517 packaging in arch wiki (for install, we were already using python-build for building). It's just we did not moved to the new (2022 is now old) python-installer method. I guess python-installer is doing the same job but requires far less options so it looks cleaner.

Ref. https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Python_package_guidelines&diff=718653&oldid=717856

We should test with python installer on a few packages, compare the resulting package tarball, and if everything goes well, we should start by updating our PKGBUILD template.

[noraj]

Besides python-build and python-installer, you will also need to add the build backend used by the package to makedepends. All build backends that are available in the repo are members of the python-build-backend group. Check the build-system.build-backend in the project's pyproject.toml which is applicable for your project. If it is not configured, it defaults to python-setuptools.

I'm not sure, but maybe the pip approach does not requires a different build backend based on what is declared in pyproject.toml. We need to test that.

[KevinCrrl]

Okay, I'll be testing on a separate branch of my fork of this repository and making comparisons between the original package using pip and my modified version using python-installer. From there, I can share some results as soon as I have enough to make a decision.

[KevinCrrl]

I have tested five packages in my environment, switching from pip to installer, and documented the results in this repository:
https://github.com/KevinCrrl/python-installer-tests
tests where I link the diff of what I changed in each package, the output of the build with makepkg, and a small functional test. The selection of packages is based solely on packages that use pip (not those that use the setup.py file), also with different recent update dates to check compatibility and simple packages such as those that use C language extensions. I based the changes I made on this template: https://github.com/BlackArch/blackarch-pkgbuilds/blob/master/python/PKGBUILD-python-PEP517-setuptools

[KevinCrrl]

I didn't have any problems with the packaging. I'm going to do some final checks, and if it works, I guess I can propose the PR with the five packages I adjusted and confirm whether other packages can use python-installer instead of pip.

[noraj]

It shouldn't pose an issue.