On 05/01/2012 02:28 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
On 1 May 2012 17:40, Chris McDonoughchrism@plope.com wrote:
Georg Brandl was trying to herd cats on outstanding PEPs today:
Is there a PEP for the "packaging" package? Is there any sort of unfinished business I can help with?
AFAIK, there's no specific PEP for packaging (there are a number of related PEPs, but nothing specific like a roadmap).
I'm sure Éric can give you much better pointers on what would be useful, but one issue I've tried to raise a few times, and more recently Jim Fulton raised here (http://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/2012-March/018323.html) is that of binary distribution support in packaging2. I've never had the time to shepherd a proposal through beyond the "initial debate" stage, and I know it's not getting high on Éric's list of priorities, but it would be good to see some movement on this.
I can offer opinions, Windows testing, and assistance, but I really don't have the time to make this happen. But I honestly believe that unless packaging has binary distribution support, it won't get "critical mass", on Windows if nowhere else.
Yeah, it's kinda required. We currently tell people to avoid pip because it doesn't support installation of binary distributions. It's just too hard to document the corner cases of using both pip and easy_install at the same time, or telling Windows people to use easy_install and UNIX people to use pip, or some combination thereof.
I'm not sure if other features we (the Pylons project) make heavy use of like extras, console scripts, entry points, and testing hooks are currently supported, but if they aren't I'd be willing to help add them as necessary. We wouldn't really be able to use it without this stuff, in any case.
Just a thought - if it's where your interests lie, that would be great. Paul.
In a perfect world, I'd not be volunteering, but it looks like I have to if I want to be able to get to bitch. ;-)