[Distutils] Monkey patching distutils was: Remove distutils, was: red, green, refactor ...
cournape at gmail.com
Thu Oct 22 18:15:46 CEST 2015
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 5:04 PM, Thomas Güttler <
guettliml at thomas-guettler.de> wrote:
> Am 21.10.2015 um 17:15 schrieb Antoine Pitrou:
> > On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 17:05:29 +0200
> > Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 21 October 2015 at 14:55, David Cournapeau <cournape at gmail.com>
> >>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Thomas Güttler
> >>> <guettliml at thomas-guettler.de> wrote:
> >>>> ok, at the moment setuptools uses distutils.
> >>>> Why not melt them together into **one** underwear-pants-module?
> >>> What do you hope getting from that ? distutils is in the stdlib, so
> >>> change easily, and even if putting setuptools in the stdlib were
> >>> you would now need to handle different versions of setuptools for
> >>> versions of python.
> >> It's more useful to go the other direction and vendor a modern version
> >> of distutils inside setuptools:
> > It seems it would only add a bit more craziness to the current
> > landscape. What happens to projects which have a need to monkeypatch
> > distutils? How does it interact with the vendored version? etc.
> What are the needs to monkeypatch distutils?
That's the only way to extend distutils in a meaningful way, because of the
broken command concept (e.g. the command dependency graph is defined inside
the classes instead of being defined by an external scheduler).
As anybody who has dealt with that codebase will tell you, It is impossible
to fix distutils without breaking most non trivial uses of it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Distutils-SIG