[Distutils] Adding entry points into Distutils ?

Paul Moore p.f.moore at gmail.com
Sat May 9 17:55:24 CEST 2009

2009/5/9 Chris Withers <chris at simplistix.co.uk>:
> +1.
> <flame>Anyone who's arguing against this is either not deploying stuff in a
> repeatable fashion, and so isn't serious in my books, or is so serious that
> they're cutting vm images to roll out and so dump everything for the app in
> site packages</flame>

Hmm. I'll accept the flame to the extent that I don't deploy stuff to
a wide enough audience to be qualified to comment on that side of
things. But:

1. Can you clarify what "this" is? Part of the issue I see is that
there's never a clear enough statement of a proposal for a non-expert
in the field to follow.
2. Distutils is for distributing python modules/packages, so
*application* deployment is out of scope. Script support is for
small-scale stuff (in my view). The fact that it gets used for more
doesn't mean it's appropriate...
3. Accepting that I don't know what you mean by "this", can I point
out that as a user, I personally have problems with a significant
proportion of scripts distributed with packages - so are you saying
that those packages "aren't serious", or that there is no way of doing
what they (and I) want at present?

Concrete examples of specific packages would probably help. Right this
moment, I can't personally provide any because I recently had to
rebuild my PC and haven't yet reinstalled the vast number of
tried-once-but-never-used-again packages I used to have available...
I'll see if I can find some in due course. (Basically, the types of
things I see are scripts distributed on Windows with no filetype
extension, .bat wrappers for command line scripts which don't work
right when called from another bat file, setuptools-built exe wrappers
which result in version-specific binaries for pure-python code, to
give some examples).


More information about the Distutils-SIG mailing list