[docs] [issue22711] "legacy" distutils docs better than packaging guide

Nick Coghlan report at bugs.python.org
Fri Oct 24 00:10:14 CEST 2014

Nick Coghlan added the comment:

No, I won't stop closing this issue, because reverting to advertising the legacy installation and distribution docs through a top level docs home page link is *never going to happen* (although I'll note again that direct links into the legacy docs have been explicitly preserved).

If you have concerns that the API reference docs for distutils and setuptools are too hard to locate from packaging.python.org, then the appropriate place to file an issue is at https://github.com/pypa/python-packaging-user-guide/issues

If you have concerns with the setuptools docs, then the place to file issues is https://bitbucket.org/pypa/setuptools/issues. pip injects setuptools into all of its setup.py invocations in order to ensure modern metadata is generated, even on older versions of Python. This is one of the reasons the legacy docs are thoroughly misleading - vanilla distutils will be used only if you run setup.py directly (without pip), and the script itself imports distutils rather than setuptools. If you *do* run setup.py that way, then many now expected features of the Python packaging ecosystem like API entry point declarations, command line wrapper generation and packaging dependency declarations won't be available, as they're setuptools features, rather than distutils ones.

If you'd like more detail on all the things that are sufficiently outdated in the legacy distribution and installation docs to make them actively misleading, then the place to ask for that information is the distutils-sig mailing list, not the CPython issue tracker.

status: open -> closed

Python tracker <report at bugs.python.org>

More information about the docs mailing list