[Distutils] Packaging situation + mailing list rules
ziade.tarek at gmail.com
Fri Jul 2 17:54:27 CEST 2010
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 5:05 PM, David Cournapeau <cournape at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 11:29 PM, Tarek Ziadé <ziade.tarek at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:18 PM, David Cournapeau <cournape at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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
>> I am not sure to understand your point here. You stated two years ago, IIRC,
>> that distutils code was unmanageable and too complicated, and that a
>> write from scracth
>> was better.
> I am sorry if I gave the impression I wanted to start again this
> discussion. I really do not want to, and I don't think anyone else
> does either. Eric stated very cleary what was my intention.
Ok, I am also sorry if I understood it the wrong way.
> As for where distutils2 is going, we (me and other scipy people) have
> stated why we *believed* (and still do) it was a wrong way when Guido
> asked about it in the context of scipy, and I don't remember having
> mentioned my disagreement over this ever since. It is pretty obvious
> you won't change your mind, and I won't change mine either.
This is precisely where I don't understand.
When this happened, I've asked you what should be done to improve,
and you gave a few ideas on the build system. We are building it
*now*, and *you* can
make distutils2 goes where you want it to go..
As a matter of fact there's a student (Eric) working on this, and it follows
your idea of separating the build configuration from other commands.
It would have been great to have your guidance in this.
Now if you want to work on a new project, that's perfectly fine, and
even more fun.
And that's good for distutils because at some point we could work on
the same standards.
But don't say it's because we disagree, because you could have what
you want in distutils2 today..
More information about the Distutils-SIG