Diez B. Roggisch
deets at nospam.web.de
Thu Aug 27 15:27:16 CEST 2009
Paul Boddie wrote:
> On 26 Aug, 17:48, Jorgen Grahn <grahn+n... at snipabacken.se> wrote:
>> Well, if you are thinking about Debian Linux, it's not as much
>> "ripping out" as "splitting into a separate package with a non-obvious
>> name". Annoying at times, but hardly an atrocity.
> Indeed. Having seen two packages today which insisted on setuptools,
> neither really needing it, and with one actively trying to download
> stuff from the Internet (fifteen seconds warning - how generous!) when
> running setup.py, it seems to me that it isn't the distribution
> packagers who need to be re-thinking how they install Python software.
> Generally, distributions have to manage huge amounts of software and
> uphold reasonable policies without creating unnecessary maintenance.
> Sadly, until very recently (and I'm still not entirely sure if there's
> really been an attitude change) the Pythonic packaging brigade has
> refused to even consider the needs of one of the biggest groups of
> consumers of the upstream code. Consequently, distributions will
> always devise different ways of storing installed Python software,
> documentation and resources, mostly because the Pythonic tools have
> been deficient, particularly in the management of the latter
You mean it's the problem of the python packaging that it can't deal with
RPMs, debs, tgzs, OSX bundles, MSIs and
Multiplied by the various packaging philosophies the respective distros
build based on these have?
I'm a Python-developer. I develop libraries and tools for Python, and want
others to be able to install these - as I want to install things *other*
python developers created.
Setuptools let's me do that (most of the time. And I mean most).
If somebody thinks he wants to include these in whatever form he prefers -
fine with me. But it's hardly *my* problem, or that of the Python world in
general, to fulfill the requirements some other people come up with.
More information about the Python-list