[Distutils] [Py2exe-users] Re: Getting tired with py2exe

[Bob Ippolito]

On Sep 20, 2005, at 8:59 PM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:

> <trimming a few lists from my reply>
>
> At 07:12 PM 9/20/2005 -0400, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>
>
>> I hope that the packager-future will be largely setuptools based and
>> that the various platform-specific packagers will share a lot more
>> code in the future (setuptools, modulegraph, etc.), making
>> maintenance easier and more fun for everyone.  This was my primary
>> use case when I was initially discussing the egg spec with PJE back
>> around pycon-time (though I have been unfortunately useless
>> implementing and evolving it).
>>
>> Right now, I think the packagers and the packages are at odds,
>> because the packagers need metadata that the packages don't provide
>> (in a pre-setuptools universe)... so right now users (or the
>> packagers) need to know a lot of magic incantations to make the
>> various complicated Python packages work, where with setuptools based
>> packages the magic incantations are built-in :)
>>
>
> Also, my outsider-observation of both py2exe and py2app is that  
> they are significantly complicated by the attempt to select and  
> distribute only a subset of the Python standard library.

No, stdlib is easy because it's not that wonky and I've already done  
a pretty thorough analysis of what imports what (from C or Python)  
and coded around it.  The "coded around it" is basically just a  
couple lines of code that enumerate the implicit dependencies.

It's third party that's hard.  If everyone used pkg_resources and  
setuptools then that'd be easy too, but they don't yet :)  py2app  
currently works around that fact by including package-specific  
knowledge for a couple popular packages, but I don't want to maintain  
that forever.

-bob