[Distutils] Timeframe of 2.0 again?

Moore, Paul Paul.Moore at atosorigin.com
Mon Oct 27 08:42:42 EST 2003

From: Anthony Baxter [mailto:anthony at interlink.com.au]
>>> "M.-A. Lemburg" wrote
> FWIW, eGenix still ships 1.5.2 compatible packages and we use
> the CVS version of distutils to built the binary packages.

I'm probably being dense here, but why don't you use the version
of distutils that came with Python (or for Python versions before
distutils was in the standard library, a fixed distutils version
compatible with that Python version) to build the binary packages?

It may be more complex to keep the build environment set up, but
surely that's a one-off cost to the distributor, rather than a
significant reason for constraining the development of distutils?


More information about the Distutils-SIG mailing list