[Distutils] Packaging situation + mailing list rules

Tarek Ziadé ziade.tarek at gmail.com
Fri Jul 2 16:16:28 CEST 2010


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"


More information about the Distutils-SIG mailing list