[Distutils] Packaging situation + mailing list rules

David Cournapeau cournape at gmail.com
Fri Jul 2 16:05:33 CEST 2010


On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 11:00 PM, Tarek Ziadé <ziade.tarek at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 3:42 PM, David Cournapeau <cournape at gmail.com> wrote:
> [..]
>>>>
>>>> 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
>> written.
>
> You are judging that distutils code is unmanageable and too complicated,
> and stating that this is an uncontroversial statement about the
> current situation.

This is not what I said. The judgement you mention was clearly stated
as my own opinion, not as an uncontroversial point.

David


More information about the Distutils-SIG mailing list