Fwd: The fate of Distutils in Python 2.7
FIY (I didn't cross-post to make it easier for following the threads)
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Tarek Ziadé ziade.tarek@gmail.com Date: Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 10:44 PM Subject: The fate of Distutils in Python 2.7 To: Python-Dev python-dev@python.org
Hello,
This is a follow-up of the Pycon summit + sprints on packaging.
This is what we have planned to do:
1. refactor distutils in a new standalone version called distutils2 [this is done already and we are actively working in the code] 2. completely revert distutils in Lib/ and Doc/ so the code + doc is the same than the current 2.6.x branch 3. leave the new sysconfig module, that is used by the Makefile and the site module
The rest of the work will happen in distutils2 and we will try to release a version asap for Python 2.x and 3.x (2.4 to 3.2), and the goal is to put it back in the stdlib in Python 3.3
Distutils in Python will be feature-frozen and I will only do bug fixes there. All feature requests will be redirected to Distutils2.
I think the easiest way to manage this for me and for the feedback of the community is to add in bugs.python.org a "Distutils2" component, so I can start to reorganize the issues in there and reassign new issues to Distutils2 when it applies.
Regards Tarek
-- Tarek Ziadé | http://ziade.org
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 7:44 PM, K. Richard Pixley rich@noir.com wrote:
Tarek Ziadé wrote:
The rest of the work will happen in distutils2 and we will try to release a version asap for Python 2.x and 3.x (2.4 to 3.2), and the goal is to put it back in the stdlib in Python 3.3
Er... 2.4? Really?
You need 2.3 ? (please say no !... ;) )
Tarek Ziadé wrote:
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 7:44 PM, K. Richard Pixley rich@noir.com wrote:
Tarek Ziadé wrote:
The rest of the work will happen in distutils2 and we will try to release a version asap for Python 2.x and 3.x (2.4 to 3.2), and the goal is to put it back in the stdlib in Python 3.3
Er... 2.4? Really?
You need 2.3 ? (please say no !... ;)
I don't need 2.3. I don't need 2.4 either. I was actually wondering if the "2.4" was a typo.
It's not clear to me that there's much need for new packaging tools in older versions.
--rich
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 8:17 PM, K. Richard Pixley rich@noir.com wrote: [..]
I don't need 2.3. I don't need 2.4 either. I was actually wondering if the "2.4" was a typo.
It's not clear to me that there's much need for new packaging tools in older versions.
Some people are building new code that needs to work with some platforms that are requiring 2.5 and sometimes 2.4 (like some old REHL that are still in use in big companies). I need 2.5 at least myself.
Regards Tarek
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 8:22 PM, Tarek Ziadé ziade.tarek@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 8:17 PM, K. Richard Pixley rich@noir.com wrote: [..]
I don't need 2.3. I don't need 2.4 either. I was actually wondering if the "2.4" was a typo.
It's not clear to me that there's much need for new packaging tools in older versions.
Some people are building new code that needs to work with some platforms that are requiring 2.5 and sometimes 2.4 (like some old REHL that are still in use in big companies). I need 2.5 at least myself.
And once you have 2.5 support, 2.4 is not really different. The big gap is 2.6 because of syntax changes like "with".
Regards Tarek
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 2:17 PM, K. Richard Pixley rich@noir.com wrote:
It's not clear to me that there's much need for new packaging tools in older versions.
I've certainly found it useful to use distribute under Python 2.4. There are still a lot of people using Python 2.4.
I think the general rule for packaging tools is that you want one that supports all the versions of Python you're using. Given that there are good reasons to try again, it's reasonable to support 2.4.
Migrating to newer versions can take a significant transition period for some applications.
-Fred
participants (3)
-
Fred Drake -
K. Richard Pixley -
Tarek Ziadé