We said "you won't have to install setuptools" but actually "you don't have to use it" is good enough. If you had 2 pkg-resources implementations running you might wind up scanning sys.path extra times...
On 19 October 2017 at 04:18, Alex Grönholm <alex.gronholm@nextday.fi> wrote:Daniel Holth kirjoitti 18.10.2017 klo 21:06:
Wasn't someone working on implementing pkg_resources in the standard library at some point?http://setuptools.readthedocs.io/en/latest/formats.html?highlight=entry_points.txt#entry-points-txt-entry-point-plugin-metadata
http://setuptools.readthedocs.io/en/latest/pkg_resources.html?highlight=pkg_resources#creating-and-parsing
It is not very complicated. It looks like the characters are mostly 'python identifier' rules with a little bit of 'package name' rules.
I am also concerned about the amount of parsing on startup. A hard problem for certain, since no one likes outdated cache problems either. It is also unpleasant to have too much code with a runtime dependency on 'packaging'.The idea has been raised, but we've been hesitant for the same reason we're inclined to take distutils out: packaging APIs need to be free to evolve in line with packaging interoperability standards, rather than with the Python language definition.Barry Warsaw & Brett Cannon recently mentioned something to me about working on a potential runtime alternative to pkg_resources that could be installed without also installing setuptools, but I don't know any of the specifics (and I'm not sure either of them follows distutils-sig).Cheers,Nick._______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig