On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 12:32 AM, anatoly techtonik <techtonik@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Tarek Ziadé <ziade.tarek@gmail.com> wrote:
Again, any new code work will not happen because 2.7 is due in less than a week. Things are happening in Distutils2.
That doesn't solve the problem. Bootstrap script can be written in one day. What we need is a consensus whatever this script is welcomed in 2.7 or not? Who is the person to make the decision?
Guido makes all final decisions.
But before he does, in general, we work all together to find a consensus, because he can't take part in all discussions. In this process, I am the guy in charge for packaging matters in the stdlib, and I am trying to write the PEPs that reflects those consensus. But anyone is welcome to champion a PEP as long as we discuss it a bit here, and we agree that a new PEP is required.
Feel free to make more points here in distutils-SIG about your idea, to explain the advantages of doing it and gain traction.
So far I haven't seen any counter arguments against _bootstrap script_ itself.
You certainly have not provided any argument *for* one. Again, what's the point compared to adding the bootstrap script ez_setup.py in your package. I also find the easiness argument rather dubious: especially on windows, the thing to give a user is an installer (.exe/.msi), not sources. That will solve more problems than any buggy bootstrap script requiring a working internet connection will ever do, cheers, David