Limit Request: phantom - 200MB

[bconstanzo]

Project

phantom (https://pypi.org/project/phantom/)

Size of release/project

Currently the .egg sits at 99Mb, but we're expecting larger releases along the way. Edit: I notice now that I misstyped 100Mb (runding up a bit since it's 99.7) in the title and it figures as 200Mb.

Which indexes

PyPI.

Reasons for the request

phantom is a library for digital image forensics which bundles a few machine learning models. Currently one of the models brings us over the preset limit. As a quick fix, we excluded that specific model from the PyPI version, and bundled instructions in GitHub as to how it can be added back post-intsallation. However, we'd like our users to just pip-install and have the full experience of the library, without having to perform additional steps.

A 200mb limit would allow us to develop and deploy more models than we're currently supporting, with a better user experience, while giving us some margin for changes and updates.

[jamadden]

Some libraries address this situation by splitting their data into separate dependencies. The data can be a direct dependency of the project so that it is automatically downloaded and installed. This may have a few benefits, such as:

• infrequently required data (uncommonly used models) can be placed in a separate extra, so that only users that require them are forced to pay the download cost with, e.g., pip install myproject[uncommon].
• If the data isn't incredibly tightly coupled with the project release, upgrades don't require users to re-download data again. e.g., upgrading from myproject 1.0.0 to 1.0.1 might not have to download myproject-data 1.0.0 again.

Perhaps that can work for this project?

[bconstanzo]

I like the idea of splitting into phantom/phantom-models, we'll work in that direction. However, that'd move the size issue from phantom to the phantom-models module. Would it make sense to have more than one -models package? Maybe models-stable and models-dev?

[jamadden]

Would it make sense to have more than one -models package? Maybe models-stable and models-dev?

If the use cases or user groups are at all different, I would suspect it would make sense.

[bconstanzo]

Ok, we'll give some thought as to how we'll manage this. Since phantom won't be needing the extra space, I'd say this can be closed until we figure it out and then request for the phantom-models package(s).