__build__ as a temp build directory for setup.py
Zitat von anatoly techtonik <techtonik@gmail.com>:
What do you think about this?
I think the status quo is fine, and see no reason to change it. Regards, Martin
On 22 Oct, 2012, at 20:03, anatoly techtonik <techtonik@gmail.com> wrote:
What do you think about this?
The cost of changing the build directory is high, and has limited upsides at best. Some of the costs: confusing current users, breaking existing documentation like books, breaking build systems, incompatibility between python versions. If the name of the build directory bothers you you can change it by adding two lines to ~/.pydistutils.cfg: [build] build-base = __build__ Ronald
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Ronald Oussoren <ronaldoussoren@mac.com> wrote:
On 22 Oct, 2012, at 20:03, anatoly techtonik <techtonik@gmail.com> wrote:
What do you think about this?
The cost of changing the build directory is high, and has limited upsides at best. Some of the costs: confusing current users, breaking existing documentation like books, breaking build systems, incompatibility between python versions.
There is already a lot of incompatibilities between 2 and 3, and even between 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3, so the added value of this change to the total cost is miserable. Speaking about user confusion - if they won't find 'build' directory - they'll surely notice __build__ in their tree. Python 3 toolchains are still fragile, so it won't come for me a a surprise if Python 3.4 conventions are not the same as in 3.3. So, there are two questions: 1. If you were designing Python from scratch right now now - which name would you choose `__build__` or `build` for the temporary directory? 2. Is the Python 3.x already mature enough to deny any improvements (considering these are improvements) for the 3.4 version?
If the name of the build directory bothers you you can change it by adding two lines to ~/.pydistutils.cfg:
[build] build-base = __build__
I think renaming doesn't makes big value, so better to stay with current state. On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 10:23 AM, anatoly techtonik <techtonik@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Ronald Oussoren <ronaldoussoren@mac.com> wrote:
On 22 Oct, 2012, at 20:03, anatoly techtonik <techtonik@gmail.com> wrote:
What do you think about this?
The cost of changing the build directory is high, and has limited upsides at best. Some of the costs: confusing current users, breaking existing documentation like books, breaking build systems, incompatibility between python versions.
There is already a lot of incompatibilities between 2 and 3, and even between 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3, so the added value of this change to the total cost is miserable. Speaking about user confusion - if they won't find 'build' directory - they'll surely notice __build__ in their tree. Python 3 toolchains are still fragile, so it won't come for me a a surprise if Python 3.4 conventions are not the same as in 3.3.
So, there are two questions: 1. If you were designing Python from scratch right now now - which name would you choose `__build__` or `build` for the temporary directory? 2. Is the Python 3.x already mature enough to deny any improvements (considering these are improvements) for the 3.4 version?
If the name of the build directory bothers you you can change it by adding two lines to ~/.pydistutils.cfg:
[build] build-base = __build__
Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
-- Thanks, Andrew Svetlov
On 25 Oct, 2012, at 9:23, anatoly techtonik <techtonik@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Ronald Oussoren <ronaldoussoren@mac.com> wrote:
On 22 Oct, 2012, at 20:03, anatoly techtonik <techtonik@gmail.com> wrote:
What do you think about this?
The cost of changing the build directory is high, and has limited upsides at best. Some of the costs: confusing current users, breaking existing documentation like books, breaking build systems, incompatibility between python versions.
There is already a lot of incompatibilities between 2 and 3, and even between 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3, so the added value of this change to the total cost is miserable. Speaking about user confusion - if they won't find 'build' directory - they'll surely notice __build__ in their tree. Python 3 toolchains are still fragile, so it won't come for me a a surprise if Python 3.4 conventions are not the same as in 3.3.
What do you mean w.r.t. python 3 toolchain fragility? AFAIK distutils and distribute work fine with Python 3, and have the same interface as with Python 2.
So, there are two questions: 1. If you were designing Python from scratch right now now - which name would you choose `__build__` or `build` for the temporary directory?
I don't know what I'd choose, __build__ is a bit too cute for my taste. I do know that I also use "build" as the name for build directories outside of Python, and have done so from before I used Python. Anyway, we are not designing from scratch, and that means you have to take the cost of change into account. Given the, at best, small improvement I don't think it worthwhile to change the default. See also <http://www.boredomandlaziness.org/2011/02/status-quo-wins-stalemate.html>.
2. Is the Python 3.x already mature enough to deny any improvements (considering these are improvements) for the 3.4 version?
Of course not, but there is a balance between the cost of changes and the improvements those bring. Ronald
If the name of the build directory bothers you you can change it by adding two lines to ~/.pydistutils.cfg:
[build] build-base = __build__
participants (4)
-
anatoly techtonik -
Andrew Svetlov -
martin＠v.loewis.de -
Ronald Oussoren