Skip to content

Implement PEP 829 - Package Startup Configuration #148641

Closed

Description

@warsaw

Feature or enhancement

Proposal:

Reference implementation for PEP 829.

Has this already been discussed elsewhere?

DPO thread

Links to previous discussion of this feature:

No response

Linked PRs

Activity

  1. self-assigned this
    on Apr 16, 2026
  2. added
    stdlibStandard Library Python modules in the Lib/ directory
    3.15bugs and security fixes
    on Apr 16, 2026
  3. picnixz commented on Apr 16, 2026

    @picnixz
    Member

    Disclaimer: ignore this message if your PEP was accepted by the SC

    Barry, maybe you are not aware of it but we try to avoid opening issues or PRs in the main repo for PEPs reference implementations if they are not already accepted. It is preferrable to have everything in a separate repo/fork so that we only discuss the reference implementation separately, unless you need the build bot fleet to test your changes (in which case, please indicate that in the PR and issue description).

    The rationale is that it is described in PEP-1:

    Once the PEP is assigned a number and committed to the PEP repository, substantive issues should generally be discussed on the canonical public thread, as opposed to private channels, GitHub pull request reviews or unrelated venues.

    Once a PEP has been accepted [by the SC], the reference implementation must be completed. When the reference implementation is complete and incorporated into the main source code repository, the status will be changed to “Final”.

    So, usually (and to really enforce splitting design discussions from integration into main), we do not open issues or PRs for PEPs that are yet to be accepted.

  4. warsaw commented on Apr 17, 2026

    @warsaw
    MemberAuthor

    Thanks @picnixz. I can respect that. I was wondering if the test-with-buildbots label (which isn't set on this PR) would disable buildbot fleet testing? The branch is in my fork.

  5. picnixz commented on Apr 17, 2026

    @picnixz
    Member

    Test-with-buildbots launch de buildbot fleet if your PR is opened against main and in this repo. If you create your own fork and create a PR against your own forked main, that label would not work (AFAIK)

  6. ncoghlan commented on May 2, 2026

    @ncoghlan
    Contributor

    @warsaw What do you think of the idea of enhancing python -m site to print out the list of startup files that were found and executed? Extracting a definitive version of that list at the moment is fairly painful (the most robust option I currently have is grepping the output of python -vv for references to \.pth).

    The key change from the current PR would be that instead of dumping the sets of pending files entirely after processing them, we'd instead move them over to an "executed files" set, and make that available for reporting purposes (both in the module API and in the python -m site output).

  7. warsaw commented on May 2, 2026

    @warsaw
    MemberAuthor

    @warsaw What do you think of the idea of enhancing python -m site to print out the list of startup files that were found and executed? Extracting a definitive version of that list at the moment is fairly painful (the most robust option I currently have is grepping the output of python -vv for references to \.pth).

    The key change from the current PR would be that instead of dumping the sets of pending files entirely after processing them, we'd instead move them over to an "executed files" set, and make that available for reporting purposes (both in the module API and in the python -m site output).

    I think this is a great idea. python -m site already prints out some information so this would be a simple addition.

  8. warsaw commented on May 3, 2026

    @warsaw
    MemberAuthor

    @warsaw What do you think of the idea of enhancing python -m site to print out the list of startup files that were found and executed? Extracting a definitive version of that list at the moment is fairly painful (the most robust option I currently have is grepping the output of python -vv for references to \.pth).

    The key change from the current PR would be that instead of dumping the sets of pending files entirely after processing them, we'd instead move them over to an "executed files" set, and make that available for reporting purposes (both in the module API and in the python -m site output).

    I'll probably do this as a followup PR after the main PEP 829 one lands.

  9. added a commit that references this issue on May 3, 2026
  10. hugovk commented on May 3, 2026

    @hugovk
    Member

    Let's also add an entry for the PEP in the What's New, rather than just linking to the PEP. Compare PEP 810.

    https://docs.python.org/3.15/whatsnew/3.15.html

    (729 and 800 will also need one.)

  11. added a commit that references this issue on May 6, 2026
  12. warsaw commented on May 8, 2026

    @warsaw
    MemberAuthor

    Closing this issue out as 829 should be fully implemented now.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

3.15bugs and security fixesstdlibStandard Library Python modules in the Lib/ directorytype-featureA feature request or enhancement

Projects

No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions