[Distutils] __build__ as a temp build directory for setup.py

Andrew Svetlov andrew.svetlov at gmail.com
Thu Oct 25 10:29:06 CEST 2012

I think renaming doesn't makes big value, so better to stay with current state.

On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 10:23 AM, anatoly techtonik <techtonik at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Ronald Oussoren <ronaldoussoren at mac.com> wrote:
>> On 22 Oct, 2012, at 20:03, anatoly techtonik <techtonik at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> What do you think about this?
>>> http://bugs.python.org/issue16299
>> The cost of changing the build directory is high, and has limited upsides at best. Some of the costs: confusing current users, breaking existing documentation like books, breaking build systems, incompatibility between python versions.
> There is already a lot of incompatibilities between 2 and 3, and even
> between 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3, so the added value of this change to the
> total cost is miserable. Speaking about user confusion - if they won't
> find 'build' directory - they'll surely notice __build__ in their
> tree. Python 3 toolchains are still fragile, so it won't come for me a
> a surprise if Python 3.4 conventions are not the same as in 3.3.
> So, there are two questions:
> 1. If you were designing Python from scratch right now now -  which
> name would you choose `__build__` or  `build` for the temporary
> directory?
> 2. Is the Python 3.x already mature enough to deny any improvements
> (considering these are improvements) for the 3.4 version?
>> If the name of the build directory bothers you you can change it by adding two lines to ~/.pydistutils.cfg:
>> [build]
>> build-base = __build__
> _______________________________________________
> Distutils-SIG maillist  -  Distutils-SIG at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig

Andrew Svetlov

More information about the Distutils-SIG mailing list