[Distutils] Q about best practices now (or near future)

Daniel Holth dholth at gmail.com
Wed Jul 17 17:59:43 CEST 2013

On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Paul Moore <p.f.moore at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 17 July 2013 16:46, Daniel Holth <dholth at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > * Are we saying "use setuptools" for everyone, or still only if you need
>> > it
>> > (asking since there is a stub about installing setuptools but the simple
>> > example doesn't have a direct need for it ATM, but could use
>> > find_packages()
>> > and such)?
>> Setuptools is the preferred distutils-derived system. distutils should
>> no longer be considered morally superior.
> Personally, I still reserve judgement on setuptools. But that's mainly if
> you actually use its features (you should carefully consider and understand
> the implications if you use its script wrapper functionality, for example).
> I see no reason to knee-jerk use it if you don't use any of its
> functionality, though. I may be in a minority on that, though :-)

One code path. Plus all your pip-using users are using it anyway. Many
have seemed to not realize that "having dependencies" is one of "its

>> The MEBS idea, or a simple setup.py emulator and a contract with the
>> installer on which commands it will actually call, will eventually let
>> you do a proper job of choosing build systems.
> By the way, what *does* MEBS mean? I've seen a few people use the term, but
> never found an explanation...

It stands for the "Meta Build System (not an actual project)" which I
proposed last September.

A suitably nuts person could just layout their project like a wheel,
edit the .dist-info by hand, zip and publish that.

More information about the Distutils-SIG mailing list