[Distutils] [pyconuk] "just use debian"

Tarek Ziadé ziade.tarek at gmail.com
Mon Sep 29 14:09:15 CEST 2008


On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 1:46 PM, David Cournapeau
<david at ar.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp> wrote:
> Nicolas Chauvat wrote:
>>
>> Sure, the package system I use is bigger than yours (if you are not
>> using Debian), but that's not my main point and insisting on it would
>> turn into an endless flame war. Can we focus on something else?
>
> Sure, that's what I am interested in :)
>
>>
>> You call me narrow minded, but I pretend to understand why people came
>> up with distutils/setuptools/eggs etc. I have been there. I felt the
>> need for a tool to easily manage systems and install dependencies. I
>> started writing one myself. Then I discovered Debian and stopped using
>> the other tools I had. Problem solved. For me.
>
> The problem is that debian packages are not always the solution (even on
> debian systems). Two big problems are:
>    - installation as non root
>    - developers deploying their own software on a custom debian
> repository does not scale at all.
>
> We have to think about those user-case.
>> I repeat. I am not trying to force other people to use Debian, I am
>> trying to get other people not to force me to use tools I do not need
>> (distutils, etc) for I have good ones already (debian packages).
>
> This part I don't understand: distutils and debian dpkg-related tools do
> have some overlap, but they are not a replacement from each other. In
> particular, distutils manages the details of python C extensions, etc...
>
> Where distutils failed big time IMHO is that it made it more difficult
> for you (or for me for that matter), not easier. Autotools did help
> packagers; a distutils successor should be able to help without getting
> in the way. For example, by providing simple discoverable meta-data.
> Wouldn't it help a debian packager to have a simple description of the
> meta-data for the dependencies ? Wouldn't it help if it was easy to set
> data_dir, doc_dir, etc... according to the FHS ? Autotools "packages"
> are relatively easy to package; I don't see why we could not achieve the
> same for python packages.

That is exactly what was brought in the other thread in distutils-SIG,
providing the package metadata in a simple way for os-vendors, without
having to deal with things like setup.py

Then having third party applications that knows how to use them
to install things in debian, or whatever the system is.

Now, the question is,  what would debian miss in here to install:

http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0345/

If you can come up with a list of missing elements, we could
probably start to work on a PEP together.

Tarek


>
> cheers,
>
> David
> _______________________________________________
> Distutils-SIG maillist  -  Distutils-SIG at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
>



-- 
Tarek Ziadé | Association AfPy | www.afpy.org
Blog FR | http://programmation-python.org
Blog EN | http://tarekziade.wordpress.com/


More information about the Distutils-SIG mailing list