On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Jason R. Coombs firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
I’m pleased to announce the official release of Setuptools 0.7, now available for download from the project page.
Nothing has changed from the 0.7b4 pre-release. This is the version that will be uploaded to PyPI after we work out the technique to deploy to PyPI without interfering with the setuptools 0.6 releases.
For convenience, I’ve also added experimental .msi installers for Windows for Python 3.3 and Python 2.7. Work may continue on these in the future, but as the documentation states, the recommended installation procedure is to use ez_setup.py.
To install this latest release, follow the canonical install instructions (using ez_setup.py), but direct the script to use bitbucket instead of PyPI:
python ./ez_setup.py --download-base=https://bitbucket.org/pypa/setuptools/downloads/
I’ll send another announcement when the official release has been uploaded to PyPI and the ez_setup.py script can be used directly.
Thank you Jason and PJ for all your work on this.
It's maybe a little late to bring this up now, but I wonder if, in a future release, we could deprecate 'ez_setup.py' (venerable though it is) and name it something a little more obvious, like 'setuptools_setup.py'. Despite being longer and including the word 'setup' twice I think it is a great deal more clear what it does.
I remember in the past, before I switched to distribute, I got reports from users who were running the ez_setup.py that I included in projects thinking that it was the "easy" way to install my software. Yes, they should have just read the README that says "python setup.py install" and makes no mention of ez_setup.py, but nevertheless I can't blame anyone for finding it vague (and maybe even a bit enticing to run).