On 7/14/05, Phillip J. Eby
At 10:26 AM 7/14/2005 +0100, Paul Moore wrote:
What I'm saying, is that I see a need for *another* transitional process - enabling users and/or package authors to make their code "resource safe", *without* having to buy into the egg/setuptools transition.
It still seems to me that you're missing something. If I don't care about eggs, why would I care about resource safety? Its only benefit is to allow my code to be put in an egg! :)
You don't care about eggs (yet). Your users (one of whom is me) do, and would like to package your code in an egg via python setup.py --compiler-package=setuptools.command bdist_egg. This works fine, with no source changes, but the resulting egg isn't zip-safe because of resource usage issues. Your user (me) can maintain a small local patch to switch to the resource API, but it would be nice to fold that patch into the distribution, and so avoid the need for a local patch. But the patch that is small for your user with setuptools installed, is large *for you* because you don't (yet) buy into the benefits of eggs (and hence the patch adds a dependency you don't want). So you reject the patch. Please be aware that the point about eggs that excites *me* is the single-file aspect. I'm pretty neutral over unpacked eggs at the moment, so zip-safety is a big bonus for me. I think we're going to have to agree to differ here. Thanks for sticking with it this far. Paul.