On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 12:42 AM, David Cournapeau <cournape@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 1:24 AM, Tarek Ziadé <ziade.tarek@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 5:20 PM, P.J. Eby <pje@telecommunity.com> wrote:
At 10:50 AM 7/1/2010 +0200, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
It's precisely because Ubuntu is a good distribution that they decided to switch to distribute to get the most active project in it.
Really? I would've thought that the most *stable* version of a project would generally be the better choice for an operating system distribution. ;-)
It's a better choice than setuptools, which is unmaintained for two years with pending bugfixes.
It is again obviously wrong, since setuptools works and distribute does not for my use case.
I am not sure how to put this more clearly: if you pretend to be a piece of software you are not, you better have to work for 100 % cases of the old one. Not 90 %, not 99 %. Anything short of 100 % is unacceptable.
If you can't guarantee 100 % compatibility, you don't force people to use your software instead of another one, I don't understand how I even have to explain this, really.
What's unacceptable right now is your tone. I am going to ask you to stop this now. What is your problem ? a bug seems to have been fixed in setuptools and was not backported in distribute. That was a miss we are going to fix. Like all software, there are bugs, regressions, etc. You made a patch, great, it'll be pushed.