Anthony Baxter wrote:
I'm not sure how people would prefer this be handled. I don't think we need to have a PEP for it - I don't see PEPs for ctypes, elementtree, pysqlite or cProfile, either.
I see a significant procedural difference between what happened for ctypes, elementtree, and pysqlite, as opposed to setuptools. For all these packages, there was 1. a desire of users to include it 2. an indication from the package maintainer that it's ok to include the package, and that he is willing to maintain it 3. some discussion on python-dev, which resulted only in support and no objection 4. some (other) committer who "approved" incorporation of the library. In essence, that committer is a "second" for the package inclusion. setuptools has 1 and 2, but fails on 3 and 4 so far. There is discussion now after the fact, but it results in objection. I'd like to point out the importance of 4: Fredrik Lundh originally asked "who approved that change", which really meant "who can I blame for it". I feel that I approved inclusion of ctypes and elementtree: I talked with the developers on how precisely it should happen, and I checked then that everything that I thought should happened indeed happened. And I did the majority of the communication on python-dev. So the package authors can get all the praise, and I happily take all the blame. The same didn't happen for setuptools: there is no second, so Phillip Eby takes all the praise *and* the blame. It's still a one-man show. Now, I know that Neal Norwitz had asked him what the status is and when it will happen, but he apparently did not want to *approve* inclusion of that package. Likewise, Guido van Rossum (apparently) did not want to approve it, either (he just would not object). If you (Anthony) want to act as a second for setuptools, I would feel much happier - because I can then blame you for whatever problems that decision causes five years from now. Regards, Martin