[Distutils] Some negative press for easy_install

[Ben Bangert]

On Feb 9, 2006, at 3:55 AM, Paul Moore wrote:

> If routes *needed* setuptools functionality, then fine - but explain
> this prominently somewhere: "This package uses setuptools, which is
> currently in alpha status - there may be issues installing or using
> the software. If you hit any problems, please report them to the
> distils-sg, and thank you for helping to test setuptools". But clearly
> routes does not need setuptolols functionality (or the Routes tests
> aren't complete - as Joe said that all the tests run). So why not
> provide a non-setuptools build, for users who don't want to fight with
> the bleeding edge?

It's mainly because Routes is relied on by quite a few other  
setuptools-enabled packages, so being able to easy install it was  
necessary. I didn't have a non-setuptools build mainly because I  
couldn't see how to setup a setup.py file in such a way that I could  
make both versions at once. I'm assuming I'd need two setup.py's and  
to swap them in the build depending on if it was a setuptools build  
or not.

Not a lot of fun, but I can see the utility of it for those not  
wishing to grapple with setuptools. Does this mean there should  
perhaps be some criteria or a recommendation to developers using  
setuptools on when they should still supply a non-setuptools build of  
their project?

- Ben