[Python-Dev] setuptools in 2.5.

["Martin v. Löwis"]

Anthony Baxter wrote:
> And now let's look at some of the stuff that setuptools gives us:
> 
>  - We have a CPAN-type system

I think it is unfair (to Richard Jones) to attribute this to
setuptools. We already have a CPAN-type system: the Cheeseshop.
What setuptools adds is roughly the CPAN shell (ie. CPAN.pm
or however it is implemented). Actually, I think it is ez_setup
that provides (something like) the CPAN shell.

It is my understanding that setuptools itself has nothing
to do with a CPAN-like system, just as Makemakefile.pl has
nothing to do with CPAN.

>  - Multiple installs of different versions of the same package, 
> including per-user installs. 

I never had the need, but I trust others do.

>  - The "develop" mode
> 
>    This makes life that bit less painful all-round. 

This could be added to distutils with no problems, right?

>  - The plugin/extension support
> 
>    Extending distutils currently is a total pain in the arse. 

If that's a desirable feature to have, it *should* be added
to distutils; IOW, it should be available if you do "from
distutils import setup", not just when you do "from setuptools
import setup".

> I'm a little suprised by the amount of fear and loathing this has 
> generated. To me, there are such obvious benefits that I don't see 
> why people are so vehemently against setuptools. I haven't seen any 
> arguments that have convinced me that this isn't the right thing to 
> do. Yes, there's still work to be done - but hell, we've only 
> released the first alpha so far.

I'm not looking at it from a end-user's point of view. I trust
that setuptools provides features that end-users want, and in
a convenient way. My fear is in the maintainer's side: how
many new bug reports will this add? How much code do I have to
digest to even make the slightest change?

That is says from itself that it is version 0.7a1dev-r45536
doesn't help to reduce that fear.

> I'm also suprised by how much some people seem to think that the 
> current state of distutils functionality is acceptable or desirable. 
> It's not - it's a mess. 

I would like to require that this is solved by contributing to
distutils, instead of replacing it. I know this is an unrealistic
request to make - in particular because there is only a single
developer world-wide which actively develops "something like that".

Requiring Phillip to rewrite distutils instead is certainly
unfair - but I'm still unhappy with the path events take.

> Finally, I'd like to point out that I think some of the hostility 
> towards Phillip's work has been excessive.

I'd like to make clear that my hostility is only towards his work;
never towards Phillip Eby himself.

Regards,
Martin