[Distutils] Packaging situation + mailing list rules

David Cournapeau cournape at gmail.com
Fri Jul 2 16:18:52 CEST 2010


On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 11:16 PM, Tarek Ziadé <ziade.tarek at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:05 PM, David Cournapeau <cournape at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> maybe so, but we need an answer with facts that are not mixing opinions. e.g. :
>
> "distutils2 is built with distutils code in a backward incompatible way"

And how does this answer the question "what are the disagreements" ?
Short of saying what those are, I fail to see how to give a good
answer,

David


More information about the Distutils-SIG mailing list