written on Friday, June 22, 2012
I admit that I was a huge fan of the Python setuptools library for a long time. There was a lot in there which just resonated with how I thought that software development should work. I still think that the design of setuptools is amazing. Nobody would argue that setuptools was flawless and it certainly failed in many regards. The biggest problem probably was that it was build on Python's idiotic import system but there is only so little you can do about that. In general setuptools took the realistic approach to problem-solving: do the best you can do by writing a piece of software scratches the itch without involving a committee or require language changes. That also somewhat explains the second often cited problem of setuptools: that it's a monkeypatch on distutils.
Update: I rarely do updates on my articles but I want to make one thing very clear: the point of this is not to complain about any of the established tools for package management in Python. For a long I did not care about binary distributions because I never had the use case, so I did not even notice that pip did not provide them. Then suddenly the use case came up and I realized that pip removed functionality from plain setuptools and it's very hard (impossible for myself) to bring it back. It's more of an observation how easy it is to miss use cases when replacing tools with something else.
For the few Python guys that don't know what setuptools is or why it exists, let me provide you with a very basic recap of what it originally wanted to do. Back in the days someone (and I really don't know who) added a system called “distutils” to Python. The purpose of that library was to provide functionality to distribute Python libraries. And for its existence we should all be really glad because besides all it's faults it is still providing us with some of the most important bits of Python package distribution. In a nutshell: distutils can make tarballs of Python code, provides you with some simple helpers that help you make an installation script and also knows how to invoke compilers.
What distutils did not do was handling metadata and that's pretty much the reason it exists in the first place. Without metadata there is no dependency tracking. While this is only partially true because there was a very limited amount of metadata even before setuptools available, that metadata disappeared once the library was installed.
Now to understand why adding metadata is not so trivial with regular Python libraries we first have to understand pth files.
I honestly don't know when .pth files were added to Python but I have a theory: I think they were added to make it possible to migrate from modules to packages. At least that would explain why PIL was distributed the way it was. PIL for a long time (and probably still is) was putting a folder called PIL into site packages. However as everybody that worked with PIL knows, you're not importing from the PIL package, you're importing the PIL modules directly. The reason this works is because PIL places a file called pil.pth in the site-packages folder.
Each line in that file is added to the search path. So far, so uninteresting. There is however another thing with .pth files that is just an example of horrible design: each line that starts with the string import is executed as Python code. This horrible design however enabled setuptools existence to a large degree. setuptools can use these .pth files as a hook to execute custom Python code even if you're not interacting with setuptools directly:
$ echo $'import sys; sys.stdout.write("Hello World!\\n")' > \ > test/lib/python2.7/site-packages/test.pth
$ test/bin/python Python 2.7.1 (r271:86832, Jul 31 2011, 19:30:53) [GCC 4.2.1 (Based on Apple Inc. build 5658) (LLVM build 2335.15.00)] on darwin Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information. Hello World!
As you can see: the test.pth file is executed when then interpreter starts up. Perfect hook place.
If you're using pip or before you're back in time before setuptools was widespread, your filesystem looked like this after installing libraries:
lib/ site-packages/ flask/ django/ genshi/
Setuptools on the other hand did something very different, it placed each installed library in another folder (called an egg) and placed a .pth file that added each of these folders to the python path:
lib/ site-packages/ Flask-1.0.egg/ flask/ Django-1.0.egg/ django/ Genshi-1.0.egg/ genshi/ easy-install.pth
This behavior enraged a lot of people because it made sys.path very long and hard to look at. Now on the first glance this looks like a horrible idea, why would you do that? Enterprisey!!!11
However in retrospective that is actually the much better solution. And it becomes obvious why that is the case when you look closer at the actual problem and why setuptools works the way it does. The big problem there is that Python developers think of packages as individual things that you can freely nest. They are a form of namespace with specific semantics attached. The way these imports work are convoluted and we won't go into detail here, but the important part is that it's customizable to some degree. This customization however is not exposed through distutils in any way. Now why would you want to customize this?
The main reason is splitting up large monolithic packages. For instance take Django. Django as a framework has django as the root packages but it also ships a bunch of addon libraries in django.contrib. If you want to have two packages on PyPI with different release cycles for django and django.contrib.admin, how would you do that with distutils?
The answer is: you don't and the main problem is the installation of these. Installing that would mean installing one library physically within another library on the filesystem. Now that sounds like a painless operation but it's not. For instance upgrades of the Django library would also have to take into account that something is now contained within that library.
The way setuptools solved that is that it installs all PyPI python packages (that means Flask-1.0.egg intead of flask the importable Python folder) into individual folders and then adds them to the path were appropriate. And it can also hook packages virtually within another package by taking advantage of the fact that pth files can have executable code in it.
Yes, this was not a very clean solution but it worked. Setuptools in a way was the Quake approach to distributing things. You have individual packages of things which then get merged together in a virtual filesystem. In setuptools it's not a virtual filesystem but it's a virtual package tree that is uncoupled from the filesystem.
And with those egg folders it also solved another problem: that there was no place to put metadata. With the added folder, setuptools had found a suitable place to put information that was generated as part of the build process. Next to the importable package within the egg folder there are also text files with the metadata.
Setuptools was really good with giving the same term to different things, a practice it copied from distutils. Not only do we have Python packages (the things with __init__.py files in it) and PyPI packages (what you download from PyPI) but with setuptools there are also now two kinds of eggs. In the original design of setuptools there was no difference between an egg folder and an egg archive, but over the years and with the introduction of pip that changed.
Now when people talk about eggs they often talk about the folders on the filesystem with the .egg extension. This however was actually not the interesting part about the original eggs at all. What eggs could do was actually more interesting and something we lost in the transition to pip.
If you take a folder with an .egg extension and make a zipfile of it's content and give it the same name as the original folder everything still worked. What was this madness? It's jar files for Python. Why does this work? It works because Python has a default import hook that checks for each file on sys.path if it's a zipfile. If it is, it activates the zip importer and imports from within the zipfile. Due to how zipfiles are structured that's actually a very speedy operation.
Now that's another thing that people hated about setuptools. Mainly because the Python tracebacks no longer included the source lines with the traceback. However there was no technical limitation for why it should not be able to show the correct line numbers there. It was just a bug in the Python interpreter. Likewise the paths in the tracebacks were wrong too because they often had paths in it that were hard compiled by the person that created the egg file. Again this is an issue with the Python interpreter and not setuptools. For reasons unknown to me, the .pyc build process puts absolute paths into .pyc files sometimes instead of relative to the import path.
The other annoyance with eggs is obviously that people tend to do clever things with __file__. Now that's going to break because there are no files. Thankfully setuptools provided a library called pkg_resources which allowed you to extract resources in a distribution agnostic way. So it could give you resources independent of it the resource was in a zipfile or on the filesystem.
Alright. At that point you're asking: what's the real advantage of an egg over just a tarball I install. My tool does the installation, I don't care how it ends up on the filesystem. Fair enough, but there is a huge difference between eggs and tarballs (or source zipfiles for that matter).
The difference is that eggs (and I'm talking about actual eggs here, the zipfiles) were usually distributed in binary form (and I recognize that there used to be an issue with ucs2/ucs4 Python builds if you want to be picky. But that does not invalidate the concept!).
distutils knows two kinds of distributions: source and binary distributions. Unfortunately binary distributions in distutils don't really work except for redhat (untested, but never heard complaints) and windows. So you can't use distutils binary distributions for instance to install something into your virtualenv on OS X or any flavour of linux. Setuptools however added a new binary distribution target called the egg binary distribution which actually works.
When we talk about a source distribution then we're talking about a tarball that has a setup.py file in it that is executes and installs the library. Binary distributions on the other hand do not have a setup executable any more. You just unpack them and you're done with them. They are also platform specific and you have to make sure you install a binary egg for the correct architecture and ucs size. And then there are other aspects to that too, but they can be ignored to understand the concept.
It's very easy to ignore binary distributions. A lot of code is written in “just” Python and the compilation is very cheap. The only thing that happens is parsing of the python files and writing out bytecode. Some other things however are more expensive to compile. The one that causes me most troubles is lxml because it takes a minute or two to compile. Now a while ago I ignored that like many other people by just keeping the virtualenv around and I obviously just installed stuff once.
However when we started doing our new server deployment we wanted to have each build revision self contained with its own virtualenv. Now to accomplish our deployment we have two options. We can either go the easy_install + setuptools route or we can go the pip + distribute route. If you're not aware of how pip operates: it basically undoes a bunch of stuff that setuptools does and is unable to install binary eggs.
The scenario is very simple:
So with easy_install and setuptools you can solve this problem very easily. For each package you're dealing with you basically just python setup.py bdist_egg and copy the resulting egg into a folder. Then you start a fileserver that exposes these eggs via HTTP with a fileindex.
That out of the way you now make a virtualenv and easy_install --site-url=http://fileserver package-name and you're set.
Now if you do the whole thing through pip instead of setuptool's easy_install command you will notice very quickly that there is no support for binary eggs. Fair enough, so what's the alternative. The way we're doing that currently is making a cached virtualenv and installing things in there. When we deploy new code we copy that virtualenv out, update all the paths in that virtualenv, rerun whatever commands are necessary to build the code (usually just a pip install) and copy it to the target location.
Since virtualenvs are not relocatable this is what our script does:
In theory virtualenvs have a --relocatable flag but that one is heavily broken and conceptionally can't work properly because it uses the system Python interpreter to switch to the intended environment.
No, not at all. Distributing Python code could be much, much worse. I think what can be learned from all that is that it's a better idea to learn all of the design of a project first before attempting to replace it. As you can see from the previous section we're using pip and not easy_install with eggs. Why are we doing that? Because pip did improve certain things over plain setuptools with easy_install and since part of the problem with broken paths is a Python interpreter problem and not one of either setuptools of virtualenv we would have to do path rewriting for pyc files even if we're using binary eggs.
The sad aspect is just that we have three competing distribution systems: setuptools with easy_install, distribute with pip as well as the new distutils2 efforts and not one covers all use cases. And I am starting to get the impression that setuptools, despite the fact that it's the oldest still has the best design of all. It ignored theoretical problems and solved practical problems you encounter if you deploy closed source code.
What I learned of that personally is not so much anything about packaging Python code but to not make any attempts to replace existing infrastructure without understanding all the reasons that lead to its existence. Also since that happened in the past I think it's a good idea to write down a list of design decisions and use cases and why they exist when I make another open source project in the future. A lot of what went into setuptools can only be understood after a long time of using it because the design is not documented enough.
Also there seems to be a lot of domain specific knowledge about tools scattered around. Especially in regards to deploying Python code to a bunch of servers it seems like everybody made his own little tool for it. It seems to me that the theoretical approach that distutils2 is currently taking where there is more design being done on the paper than testing in the real world. Maybe that however is also just a wrong impression I got.
All in all, the issue is just too complex and it's easy to miss things when starting from scratch again. Pip was not even from scratch and it forgot about binary distributions and Windows users. As such I suppose it would have been ultimately better to try and repair setuptools with as much hacks as necessary and then rewrite the implementation once all design decisions have been finalized. This seems to have worked good enough for virtualenv which has recently become part of the standard library for Python 3.
TL;DR: setuptools wrongly got so much hate that tools tried to replace it which did not help much.