[Distutils] stdeb-0.3 error

Gerry Reno greno at verizon.net
Thu Sep 24 22:33:15 CEST 2009

Tarek Ziadé wrote:
> Gerry:
>>> So are you saying then that a stddeb-based 'bdist_deb' should be
>>> implemented as a standalone plugin to Distribute?  And how would that work
>>> for distros such as Ubuntu 8.0.4 Hardy?  Would they be able to take
>>> advantage of Distribute?
> Yes, it's just a matter of packaging this command in a standalone distribution.
> Once it's installed, and distutils.cfg properly configured, it can be
> used as a plugin.
> Distribute is not yet a good citizen for being used in such packages,
> because it still
> patches distutils like setuptools does.
> Eric:
>> I think a long term goal should be getting away from the plugin nature of
>> distutils. I don't see why distutils (or my mythical distlib) shouldn't just
>> be a package (or more likely multiple packages) that stand-alone tools can
>> use. Other than much complexity and confusion, I don't see what plugins have
>> bought us. Not everything (and especially not distutils) needs to be a
>> framework.
> It's just a matter of defining *where* is the CLI and how it works.
> The plugin system here is just to make those commands reachable from
> distutils's
> setup.py machinery. If another package has its own CLI, it can ignore
> this plugin system I guess.
>> I'll admit that this plan in years down the road, at best. And it's not
>> anyone's official position.
> Agreed, we need to think about alternatives.
> but in any case, nowadays, if the stdeb project wrap its work in a
> bdist_deb command that can
> be used as a distutils plugin, I don't think it's a problem for the future.
> I would be pretty happy about it :)
> Tarek

Then I'm ok then with having 'bdist_deb' be the name and using the 
plugin approach.

Andrew, what do you think about this solution?


More information about the Distutils-SIG mailing list