[Distutils] Time for a setuptools_lite??

Wayne Werner waynejwerner at gmail.com
Wed Oct 21 13:44:38 EDT 2015

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 12:32 PM, David Cournapeau <cournape at gmail.com>

> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Ronny Pfannschmidt <
> opensource at ronnypfannschmidt.de> wrote:
>> why does that have to be in setuptools ?!
>> if we want a new light system to begin with, shouldn't it be far more
>> sustainable to use just implementations of the new standards rather than
>> leaving all of setuptools
>> there is no viable way in setuptools to get rid of the legacy ina sane
>> and fast manner, it would drag out over years
> agreed. I have never met a person who had to deal substantially with
> distutils code and enjoyed the experience.
> The whole architecture is fundamentally flawed. I wrote this a long time
> ago, but I still stand by most arguments:
> https://cournape.wordpress.com/2009/04/01/python-packaging-a-few-observations-cabal-for-a-solution/

I've (luckily?) never had to deal with distutils code... I am definitely
digging the post. First time I've read it, but I am definitely more
pro-standard-interface-and-let-tools-do-with-it-what-they-will than I was a
few minutes ago.

Would pip's freeze format work a la the cabal file, or is it missing too
much information?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/attachments/20151021/c09b156e/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Distutils-SIG mailing list