[Distutils] current preferred way to specify dependencies? future?
david.lyon at preisshare.net
Thu Jan 7 09:39:57 CET 2010
>> > os.machine == 'i386'
> It should be platform.machine, not os.machine.
>> Haven't seen a '386 for over ten years.. Intel have standardised
>> to calling everything 'Pentium' pretty much since at least 2000.
I don't see how it is irrelevent that the constants don't
map to any 'real' machines on the market.
> The platform module has been around in Python for quite some time.
> Too bad you haven't noticed it yet.
Actually I do know about it. But I was only commenting about the PEP as it
>> imho 'win32' is a really confusing term. That implies that it won't
>> work on 64bit. When in fact it mostly will.
> No, it implies that the test will be true on all systems where the
> platform value in the sys module will be win32. That *also* has
> been around for ages (ever since Python started, basically).
I know that you know that. But people without the programming legacy that
you do can't be expected to know that.
> Whereas using the built-in platform identification mechanism
> would be extremely difficult?
The problem is that you can't buy any machine from the shop called
'darwin'. You can't buy any notebook/desktop new machine
with an i386 processor in it.
Any new kid can't buy a darwin or an i386 notebook.
We don't use "steam-train" to denote an "ICE" train. It is
just not right. Sorry.
The module is flawed and doesn't reflect the real world.
Why build a new PEP upon a module with errors? It doesn't make sense.
But this is just the start. I'll outline more problems to come.
Starting new PEPs based on erroneous system APIs? Sorry
I think that is lower than your normallly incredibly
high standard of workmanship.
More information about the Distutils-SIG