I'll give you that number(?) but ...
mercurial, docutils, jinjia2 pygments, sphinx, lxml, nose, cherrypy, django, pyqt ... all they don't need/use setuptools: that 25% left is quite an interesting field to play in.
If setuptools was "significant packaging innovation" do you think people wouldn't have embraced already? Allow me to call *that* a nonsense.
ps. my experience is on the field, so please give me the credit of many years of experience if I'm say I'm not that keen on "auto" tools: in this kiss rules.
On Tue 13/11/12 17:35, "Daniel Holth" firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Setuptools! You would avoid 75% of pypi. It is nonsense to pretend that setuptools is not a significant packaging innovation. Its main flaw is that it is based on distutils, a non-extensible design. distutils2 is a lot of setuptools and distutils code with the plug-ability taken out.
Perhaps I should say that I would like distutils to become as relevant to packaging as the cgi module is to web development. It is not a short-term goal.