On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Tarek Ziadé firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On 5/16/12 3:19 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 2:55 AM, Tarek Ziadétarek@ziade.org wrote:
On 5/16/12 3:58 AM, Chris McDonough wrote:
Adding two more (packaging and distutils2) which are similarly semi-documented and which don't even solve the problems that the previous ones do would serve no purpose, and baking them into Python itself will mean they can't evolve in important ways.
Oh, I think I need to answer to this too since you said you wanted to help. Packaging is not intended to be similar to setuptools in its features.
For instance we won't provide console scripts or entry points. The first one because 'script' is the same feature (except there's an indirection and I said before we could mimic this)
I don't know what this means. Will we have something functionally-equivalent to console-scripts? Or will we have something more similar to the old distutils scripts functionality. If the later, then I doubt that packaging will work well with buildout.
Please explain us exactly what you mean with this feature.
What we want to have in packaging is the old distutils srcipt feature, with an extra option: a way to point a callable instead of a module, and then a wrapper like setuptools does.
That's exactly what buildout needs.