On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Tarek Ziadé email@example.com wrote:
My understanding is that the legacy tools already work, for some vague definition of "work". Your task is to convince me that "packaging" is better -- which I think will be hard to do if packaging is not better.
It really depends what you put behind the word "better". And no, My task is not to convince you that packaging is better.
My tasks were :
1 - try to define standards which every packaging tool can implement, for the sake of interoperability, have a consensus on them, have them "accepted" 2 - allow more "static" definitions of metadata 3 - add in the standard library a/ a reference implementation for all the standards b/ a minimal installer.
3-b is not ready for prime time obviously - but this should not take too long.
I don't usually do this, and I think most people on this list are already aware of it, but this seems like a decent place to insert a shameless plug for d2to1 . d2to1 allows Python developers to take advantage of many of the features and advantages of packaging today--in particular static metadata and hook functions--while still supporting existing installers like easy_install and pip. It's a total hack, and only meant to aid with transition, but it actually works quite well in practice.
Unfortunately I haven't found the time to work on it in a little while so I need to find that time. In particular it would be useful for it to add resources support.