[Python-Dev] RFC: Including PIL in 1.6

[Greg Ward]

On 20 June 2000, esr@thyrsus.com said:
> Watch that argument -- it could turn and bite you.  What's the justification
> for including, e.g. POP client classes in the standard distribution?
> 
> One of Python's most important strengths is the "batteries *are*
> included" richness of the standard environment.

I totally agree.  There are two extremes, both completely silly: include
nothing with Python (except string, re, os, and sys -- because Distutils
needs them ;-), and include every useful, working, documented module
under the sun.  I don't think anyone would seriously argue for either
approach.  (Although you could argue that a completely stripped-down
Python might be useful in certain environments, eg. a hand-held.  But I
don't think you'd win that argument.)

And I will be the first to admit that the Distutils still aren't good
enough: in most respects, they're better than MakeMaker (IMHO), but
there's nothing like CPAN.pm or the XEmacs package manager.  And I know
from personal experience that, amazing as CPAN.pm is, it's not The
Answer; and others have attested, that XEmacs is pretty damn good but
still not perfect.

But I still don't think PIL should be included in the core, if only
because it's one of the Distutils "test cases".  ;-)

        Greg
-- 
Greg Ward - software developer                gward@mems-exchange.org
MEMS Exchange / CNRI                           voice: +1-703-262-5376
Reston, Virginia, USA                            fax: +1-703-262-5367