Re: Guix's python has pip's user dir in its loadpath

[Maxim Cournoyer]

Hi John,

John Kehayias <john.kehayias@protonmail.com> writes:

> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Jul 01, 2023 at 11:57 AM, Maxim Cournoyer wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Wojtek Kosior <koszko@koszko.org> writes:
>>
>>> The precedence of local, pip-installed Python libraries over Guix ones
>>> has already been a source of bugs. And these can be hard to diagnose.
>>
>>> I imagine an optimal solution would be to configure this behavior on
>>> per-package basis. The vast majority of applications does not need to
>>> load local libraries. There are just a few exceptions like
>>> `python-virtualenv`.
>>>
>>> Once I did write a package definition that deliberately disabled user
>>> site dir package loading. I used code similar to what's below.
>>>
>>>> (modify-phases %standard-phases
>>>>   (add-after 'wrap 'prevent-local-package-interference
>>>>     (lambda* (#:key outputs #:allow-other-keys)
>>>>       (substitute* (string-append (assoc-ref outputs "out")
>>>>                                   "/bin/<program-name>")
>>>>         (("^#!/.*$" shabang)
>>>>          (string-append shabang
>>>>                         "export PYTHONNOUSERSITE=1\n"))))))
>>
>> That is indeed a simple thing we could do to harden Python binaries from
>> picking up user pip-installed dependencies potentially causing
>> problems.  I would welcome such a patch.
>>
>
> Perhaps, but if this is expected (and known) upstream behavior, I'm
> wary of deviating from these expectations. This general area does seem
> tricky and no simple best answer I guess.

While it's true that it's an intended upstream behavior,  I think in the
context of Guix users packages to be self-contained or in some case be
able to load Guix-installed plugins or extensions, but here it seems
reasonable that a Guix-packaged Python binary prefers loading Python
libraries from Guix rather that from the Python user site.

>>> Of course, it makes no sense to add such snippet to all definitions.
>>> Instead, we could modify python-build-system to allow doing a similar
>>> thing based on a flag passed in package's `(arguments)`.
>>
>> I think it need not be made configurable but just applied
>> indiscriminately to the wrap phase used in the python-build-system.
>
> And this is part of the same question then, we should try to be
> consistent, yes. I don't see a clear right path, but I haven't thought
> much about this area. I think it comes down to a current
> issue/limitation/quirk of Python from upstream and packaging for our
> distro puts us in between what comes from them and how to take care of
> our users.
>
> But we'll be rebuilding the Python world anyway, so now is a chance to
> try out some changes like that, though maybe it is a bit much with
> what we are trying already. See <https://issues.guix.gnu.org/63139>

It's a simple change, I guess we could try it at the same time, if
someone volunteers to do it!

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim