On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:05 PM, David Cournapeau <cournape@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 11:00 PM, Tarek Ziadé <ziade.tarek@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 3:42 PM, David Cournapeau <cournape@gmail.com> wrote: [..]
I think the following in uncontroversial:
distutils and setuptools are useful packaging solutions which have significant shortcoming, both design and implementation-wise. Some people believe the distutils/setuptools/distribute issues can be solved by gradually deprecating code and adding new features, other people (me, but I am not alone) believe it would be better and faster to rewrite something from scratch because the distutils code is unmanageable and too complicated.
You keep saying that for years, but in the meantime, the code was cleaned.
I was just summarizing the situation to answer the original question from the OP. There was absolutely no judgement in the text I have written.
You are judging that distutils code is unmanageable and too complicated, and stating that this is an uncontroversial statement about the current situation.
This is not what I said. The judgement you mention was clearly stated as my own opinion, not as an uncontroversial point.
maybe so, but we need an answer with facts that are not mixing opinions. e.g. : "distutils2 is built with distutils code in a backward incompatible way"