On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 09:17:02 +1300, Robert Collins email@example.com wrote:
On 26 November 2015 at 08:57, Barry Warsaw firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
There's a lot to process in this thread, but as I see it, the issue breaks down to these questions:
How should PEP 493 be implemented?
What should the default be?
How should PEP 493 be worded to express the right tone to redistributors?
Let me take on the implementation details here.
On Nov 24, 2015, at 04:04 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
I would still find having built-in support for the recommendations in the Python stdlib a better approach
As would I.
For what its worth: a PEP telling distributors to patch the standard library is really distasteful to me.
We've spent a long time trying to build close relations such that when something doesn't work distributors can share their needs with us and we can make Python out of the box be a good fit. This seems to fly in the exact opposite direction: we're explicitly making it so that Python builds on these vendor's platforms will not be the same as you get by checking out the Python source code.
I think we should include the environment variable support in CPython and be done with it (nuke the PEP otherwise). Which is what I've thought from the beginning :)