[Image-SIG] Some issue with easy_install and PIL/Imaging
fredrik at pythonware.com
Mon Oct 5 10:53:42 CEST 2009
The problem is that too many people arguing for eggs do this by
sending nastygrams, which doesn't really provide much motivation for
doing anything about it (I don't do asshole-driven development). The
public review PIL got a couple a minutes ago matches some of the
private mail I've gotten:
no egg - worst seen ever, remove it from pypi or provide an egg
(jensens, 2009-10-05, 0 points)
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 6:24 PM, Chris Withers <chris at simplistix.co.uk> wrote:
> Fredrik Lundh wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Chris Withers <chris at simplistix.co.uk>
>>> Klein Stéphane wrote:
>>>> Resume :
>>>> 1. first question : why PIL package in "pypi" don't work ?
>>> Because Fred Lundh have his package distributions unfortunate names that
>>> setuptools doesn't like...
>> It used to support this, but no longer does. To me, that says more
>> about the state of setuptools than it does about the state of PIL,
>> which has been using the same naming convention for 15 years.
> Yep, but it is now in the minority, and consistency in package naming is
> always good.
> Would there be any problems for you in naming the distribution in a
> setuptools-friendly way from the next point release?
> Simplistix - Content Management, Batch Processing & Python Consulting
> - http://www.simplistix.co.uk
More information about the Image-SIG