[Distutils] Packaging situation + mailing list rules
ziade.tarek at gmail.com
Fri Jul 2 16:13:27 CEST 2010
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:00 PM, P.J. Eby <pje at telecommunity.com> wrote:
> Isn't it interesting how these rules prohibit open disagreement or criticism
> (or even discussion!) of distribute and related matters, but *not*
There's a huge gap between criticism + discussion, and the habitual flame
of distribute vs setuptools. I think you know what I mean.
Feel free to propose some changes on these rules, because I think you would
be as happy as I would not to have to deal with flames like that.
> I mean, if I realized that as the maintainer of a package that people were
> openly criticizing here, I could just post a list of rules to the SIG and
> prohibit it, I might've done that five years ago. ;-) (Nah, not really.
> But I'm certainly amused by how you've suddenly become concerned with
> "tone" in the SIG as soon as you get ONE person who's unhappy with
I've posted now because Distutils-SIG for some time was a peaceful place again,
then a thread started a new unuseful flame again.
> On a separate note, I'm curious why discussion of Distutils2 development is
> not in a formal Python SIG, such as the Distutils-SIG.
To avoid such threads and flames. I am moderating the list over there
because I don't want
the ambiance to become as bad as distutils-SIG. I am not the
maintainer of Distutils-SIG, and I am just making some suggestions to
try to improve the situation.
I would like the GSOC student to work in a friendly environment and
not have them to deal with annoying threads. They are sending mails at
distutils-SIG from time to time, but the work happens there. Maybe the
list will disappear at some point if distutils-SIG become a friendlier
You are welcome to join and work with us on distutils2 there,
More information about the Distutils-SIG