[Python-Dev] "setuptools has divided the Python community"

Barry Warsaw barry at python.org
Thu Mar 26 00:04:26 CET 2009

Hash: SHA1

On Mar 25, 2009, at 11:16 AM, David Cournapeau wrote:

> It fails for software I am directly involved in, or maybe the layer
> just below: for example, there is no way for me to get a python 2.6 on
> my distribution (Ubuntu), so I cannot easily test the python projects
> I am involved in for python 2.6.

At least it's better now so that if you install it from source and  
throw a bunch of modules into site-packages, you won't kill your  
distro. :)

> I already mention this on the distutils ML, but IMO, the only workable
> solution is to have a system which makes it *possible* for OS
> distributors to package in whatever they see fit (.deb, .rpm, .dmg,
> .exe, .msi). Distutils, as of today, makes it much harder than it is
> for non trivial softwares (documentation, controlling what goes where,
> etc...). That's something we can hope to improve. Again, I will take
> the autoconf example: it has no policy, and can be used for different
> kind of situations, because you can (if you want) control things in a
> very fine-grained manner. Automatic, 'native' installers which are
> well integrated into every system, this seems so far from reach I
> don't see how this can even be considered.

I agree.  With my developer's hat on, I can't know all the crazy  
places my package will be used, so distutils is great because at least  
it's easy for me to write a setup.py, push my package to some place,  
and share it with other developers.  My hope of course is that the  
setup.py is useful to distros who want to include my package in their  


Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)


More information about the Python-Dev mailing list