[Distutils] What is the official position on distutils?
ralf.gommers at gmail.com
Sat Sep 3 17:30:10 EDT 2016
On Sat, Sep 3, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2 September 2016 at 19:28, Paul Moore <p.f.moore at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2 September 2016 at 09:58, Sylvain Corlay <sylvain.corlay at gmail.com>
> >> My point here was that I don't think that the proposed feature has much
> >> do with the concerns that were raised about distutils in general,
> unless it
> >> is decided that incremental improvements to the library even backward
> >> compatible will not be accepted anymore.
> > Agreed. I think your feature is only stalled for distutils by the lack
> > of people sufficiently comfortable with the code to apply it. The
> > suggestions to add it to setuptools are more in the way of practical
> > advice on how to make the feature available, rather than expressions
> > of a policy that "we don't make changes like that in the stdlib".
> However, one of the other consequences of the status quo is that if
> Jason's comfortable with a change for setuptools, there's very rarely
> going to be anyone that will argue with him if he also considers it a
> suitable addition to the next version of distutils :)
> Since Jason's primary involvement in distutils-sig & PyPA is as the
> lead setuptools maintainer, it's easy for folks to be unaware of the
> fact that he's a distutils maintainer as well.
> So perhaps that's what we should adopt as the official distutils-sig
> policy? Any proposed distutils changes should *always* go into
> setuptools, as that way they're available for all currently supported
> Python versions,
and better maintained, and easier to fix if there's bugs, etc.
> and then it's up to the setuptools project to
> escalate changes or change proposals for stdlib inclusion when they
> consider that an appropriate step.
+1. clear and pragmatic policy.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Distutils-SIG