Re: [Distutils] How to force installing setuptools instead of distribute ?
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. Stable != unmaintained ;)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Tarek Ziadé 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.
Somewhat ironic from a developer who just posted that he didn't have time to merge a six-week-od fix for a three-month-old bug in distribute which is already fixed (or never existed, maybe, I haven't looked) in a seven-month-old setuptools. Tres. - -- =================================================================== Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tseaver@palladion.com Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkwsz1AACgkQ+gerLs4ltQ7ATQCeJGSKPc4b1+NRPon8NMwNjbFD r1UAnjFg8SxY7FjlhFfG8wninfZVts7O =tg7g -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Tres Seaver <tseaver@palladion.com> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Tarek Ziadé 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.
Somewhat ironic from a developer who just posted that he didn't have time to merge a six-week-od fix for a three-month-old bug in distribute which is already fixed (or never existed, maybe, I haven't looked) in a seven-month-old setuptools.
If you want to check, it might be in here http://svn.python.org/view?view=rev&revision=75384 And if you see anything else we missed, let us know ! Anyway, what you are saying is exactly the point: this piece of software shouldn't rely on one person when that person cannot spend time on it anymore (or not enough time) because people get frustrated, things are not moving, and he gets attacks from people here. The big difference is that Distribute is not locked by me, eg there are 10+ commiters able to merge changes. Maybe you could have merge it yourself, since Distribute is open to contributions ? You just have to give me your bitbucket account and you'll have a write access right away. Apart from that, Distutils-SIG has been a nice place for months, (by "nice" I mean a normal ML), and it looks like we are back on the bad habits here. :( So let's stop the flames about the setuptools / distribute war. If people want to have a bits of it, they can check the archives. Thanks, Tarek -- Tarek Ziadé | http://ziade.org
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. David
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.
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Tarek Ziadé <ziade.tarek@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
The problem is not the bug. Of course, every software has bugs. The issue is that import setuptools give distribute, even though I do want setuptools, and that distribute does that against both upstream will and my will. The issue is that I have wasted days of free work on numpy/scipy because of all this softwares that had causes issues *even though my project don't use setuptools/distribute*. I am sure you would be pissed too if people were installing numpy, would change behavior of say zope behind your back, and you would get all the bug reports from your users. David
participants (3)
-
David Cournapeau -
Tarek Ziadé -
Tres Seaver