At 11:55 PM 4/18/2006 +0200, Fredrik Lundh wrote:
who decided that setuptools should be added to 2.5, btw?
Guido proposed it on Python-dev when the 2.5 schedule was first being discussed. I discussed it with him off-list, to ensure that it could be done in a way that wouldn't interfere with existing setuptools users or affect Python itself in a negative way. (For example, it needed to be upgradeable in the field in case users wanted/needed a later version than the one included in 2.5.)
He then mentioned it in his 2.5 slideshow at PyCon. This is the first anyone's objected to it, however, at least that I'm aware of.
it's still listed under "possible additions" in the release PEP,
I imagine that might be why nobody raised any objections sooner, although I understood the possibility to mean "if nobody objects". :)
I also posted on Python-dev repeatedly in recent weeks, referring to how the various PEP 302 fixes and updates would interact with setuptools when it got in for 2.5. Also, Neal emailed me the week before last, asking when I would be getting setuptools checked in, and I told him April 17th - i.e., yesterday. So, I was under the impression this was all a done deal.
and there don't seem to be a PEP or any other easily located document that explains exactly how it works, what's required from library developers, how it affects existing toolchains, etc.
The setuptools manual is currently at:
pending conversion to the standard Pythondoc format. I posted earlier today asking about how it, and the other related manuals should be included in the overall Python documentation structure:
The reST source of these manuals is in trunk/sandbox/setuptools, where it has been evolving over the last year.
is this really ready for inclusion ?
Please define "ready". I don't mean that in a flippant way, I just don't know what you mean.
does anyone but Phillip understand how it works ?
Does anybody besides Thomas understand how ctypes works? ;)
Rhetorical jokes aside, every time I've made a significant change to how setuptools works, I've posted it to the distutils-sig -- and usually I make proposals in advance to get feedback or stimulate discussion. I regularly post explanations there in response to questions from people who are integrating it with system packaging tools, or creating various other customizations. And there are other people on distutils-sig who can answer questions about it. The TurboGears community is proficient enough with it that it's only once every few months now that a question gets kicked upstairs to me to answer.
A number of people have contributed patches, including Ian Bicking and Tres Seaver. Bob Ippolito was a significant participant in the original design and wrote some of the initial code for the runtime. A *considerable* number of distutils-sig participants have had design input, either through direct suggestions, or through their giving more use case examples that I needed to make "just work".
So, I'm not too pleased by insinuations that setuptools is anything other than a Python community project. But MAL and MvL are the only folks from Python-Dev who I've seen over there arguing for changes to setuptools -- and I actually made changes based on their input, although they rarely got 100% of what they asked for.
The --really-long-option MAL is complaining about was put in to provide a feature that *he and MvL wanted me to include*; I just don't want that behavior to be the default behavior for setuptools. (And neither do package developers who have to support "non-root" users on virtual hosting systems, or other environments where system packaging tools aren't available.)
So, it seems to me that MAL claiming that nobody got to participate in the design process is rather misleading. It's like somebody who wanted decorators in Python and then gripes about the '@' syntax. Everybody's got to compromise a bit. I put their feature in months ago, and it is even the default when you use --root with install.