[Distutils] Migration Path to metadata was: Remove distutils, was: red, green, refactor ...

Thomas Güttler guettliml at thomas-guettler.de
Sat Oct 24 08:02:46 EDT 2015

Am 23.10.2015 um 21:12 schrieb Nick Coghlan:
> On 22 October 2015 at 18:07, Thomas Güttler
> <guettliml at thomas-guettler.de> wrote:
>> Am 21.10.2015 um 17:05 schrieb Nick Coghlan:
>>> On 21 October 2015 at 14:55, David Cournapeau <cournape at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 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 cannot
>>>> change easily, and even if putting setuptools in the stdlib were possible,
>>>> you would now need to handle different versions of setuptools for different
>>>> versions of python.
>>> It's more useful to go the other direction and vendor a modern version
>>> of distutils inside setuptools:
>>> https://bitbucket.org/pypa/setuptools/issues/417/adopt-distutils
>>> distutils can then optionally be replaced wholesale at runtime, rather
>>> than having the internals be monkeypatched.
>>>> On top of this, the goal of lots of efforts around packaging is to allow
>>>> people to move away from distutils/setuptools, as the underlying design is
>>>> fundamentally difficult to extend.
>>> We still need a migration path to modern metadata standards for
>>> everyone using distutils and setuptools - that's the side of things
>>> that caused major problems for both distribute and distutils2.
>> I guess you have a rough migration path in your mind? I guess some
>> people here are interested.
> The people here are the ones already building it: ensuring setuptools
> can generate any required metadata, using pip to inject setuptools
> into the build process for projects using plain distutils.
> Providing the option for folks that don't want to use distutils or
> setuptools to be able to use something else and have pip handle that
> reliably would be a nice addition, especially if it's done in a
> beginner friendly way that can become the new default build tool
> recommendation, but ideas for improvement that start with expecting
> tens of thousands of project owners to change the build system they
> use aren't going to work.

yes, you are right. Several small steps are better than one big.


More information about the Distutils-SIG mailing list