Depends on your use-case. I wasn't at the talk (and haven't watched the video, yet), but apparently there was a bit of a 'heated' debate during the question portion of the talk. Apparently some people from the scientific Python community have given up waiting for their issues to be addressed and are working on their own packaging solution to meet their needs.
If most of your modules are pure-Python or maybe a little bit of C, then you might not be running into the warts that the current packaging systems have.
Also, running 'pip install package' hides what kind of lengths that developers/package maintainers have to go through to get things working correctly. That's also part of the discussion when talking about a decent packaging system.
> I often miss the virtualenv + pip approach
Perl's "perlbrew + cpanm" approach is more fully featured. I miss having a 'requirements.txt' type capability, but perlbrew downloads/compiles Perl, so each environment can have a different version of Perl, which is a little more complex with virtualenv.