[Distutils] Packaging situation + mailing list rules
cournape at gmail.com
Fri Jul 2 15:42:59 CEST 2010
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 10:31 PM, Tarek Ziadé <ziade.tarek at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2010/7/2 David Cournapeau <cournape at gmail.com>:
>> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 9:09 PM, anatoly techtonik <techtonik at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Great post, Tarek. Following good old newsgroups/FIDOnet tradition it
>>> could be nice to see this transformed to Rules/FAQ document that will
>>> be reposted automatically here by a robot about once a month.
>>> Without such documents your proposal will be weakly supported, because
>>> people will still have questions, and you will need to answer them
>>> reasonably to eliminate the source of conflict for making
>>> collaboration moving into the right direction (which you also need to
>>> 1. Why the rules?
>>>> From time to time this mailing list is getting very unpleasant to work
>>>> in because some old disagreements, and because some people are
>>>> starting to get really nasty.
>>> 2. What are those 'disagreements' people can agree upon?
>> I think the following in uncontroversial:
>> distutils and setuptools are useful packaging solutions which have
>> significant shortcoming, both design and implementation-wise. Some
>> people believe the distutils/setuptools/distribute issues can be
>> solved by gradually deprecating code and adding new features, other
>> people (me, but I am not alone) believe it would be better and faster
>> to rewrite something from scratch because the distutils code is
>> unmanageable and too complicated.
> You keep saying that for years, but in the meantime, the code was cleaned.
I was just summarizing the situation to answer the original question
from the OP. There was absolutely no judgement in the text I have
More information about the Distutils-SIG