At 03:48 PM 4/10/2008 -0500, Dave Peterson wrote:
Stanley A. Klein wrote:
On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 18:17 -0500, Dave Peterson wrote:
I think I can sum up any further points by simply asking: "Should it be safe to assume I can distribute my application via eggs / easy_install just because it is written in Python?"
I think that based on this discussion the bottom line answer to this question is "No".
I agree that it seems like that's where things are headed in the discussion. But the discussion doesn't always coincide with the reality, right? I guess I'm trolling more for a statement from the setuptools maintainer here.
Particularly since I'm looking for an answer to my question about should Enthought continue to invest time into a setuptools patch that lets developers include docs, config files, etc. in eggs for installation in a FHS-approved location at install time?
I think it's more than reasonable to define a standard for including such data. I'm somewhat more skeptical about doing that installation automatically within easy_install. Likewise, I'm skeptical about doing other sorts of non-package, non-script installation. I'd like to see proposals that show due care to cross-platformness, uninstallability, etc. In other words, when it comes to a "patch" -- the documentation is going to count for a lot more than the code, and I'd rather see a concrete proposal well in advance of the patch. Sooner would be better than later, too, because it's likely that the plan for "non-egg installs" is going to be affected by the plan as well.