Packages built and distributed using ``setuptools`` (provided by :ref:`distribute_info`) look to the user like ordinary Python packages based on the :mod:`distutils` module. Your users don�t need to install or even know about ``setuptools`` in order to use them, and you don�t have to include the entire ``setuptools`` package in your distributions. By including the `distribute_setup.py <http://python-distribute.org/distribute_setup.py>`_, which is a single bootstrap module (an 8K .py file), your package will automatically download and install ``setuptools`` if the user is building your package from source and doesn't have a suitable version already installed

This gives me further confidence about the below-stated intent behind using distribute_setup.use_setuptools. But the question is: should it replace setuptools with Distribute? I'd say not. There should at least be an option (as suggested below) to accept setuptools if it is found, and install distribute only if neither setuptools nor distribute is already installed.

On 2010-03-15, at 11:18 AM, Sridhar Ratnakumar wrote:

Tarek,

For some background on this, see http://bitbucket.org/srid/modern-package-template/issue/9/distribute_setup-should-not-be-used#comment-139503

The intent behind calling distribute_setup.use_setuptools (and ez_setup.use_setuptools) is that if the user does not have setuptools installed, running "python setup.py install" will automatically install it for him.

But if the user already has setuptools, running distribute_setup.use_setuptools upgrades that installation to Distribute. This goes against the original intention, correct?

Is it reasonable to provide an option to `use_setuptools` that would decide if Distribute must replace the existing setuptools or not?

-srid

_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig