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

[Olemis Lang]

On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 7:49 AM, M.-A. Lemburg <mal at egenix.com> wrote:
> On 2009-03-27 04:19, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> - keep distutils, but start deprecating certain higher-level
>> functionality in it (e.g. bdist_rpm)
>> - don't try to provide higher-level functionality in the stdlib, but
>> instead let third party tools built on top of these core APIs compete
>
> Should this be read as:
>
> - remove bdist_rpm from the stdlib and let it live on PyPI
>
> ?
>
> Perhaps I just misunderstand the comment.
>
> I think that esp. the bdist_* commands help developers a lot by
> removing the need to know how to build e.g. RPMs or Windows
> installers and let distutils deal with it.
>
> The bdist_* commands don't really provide any higher level
> functionality. They only provide interfaces to certain packaging
> formats commonly used on the various platforms.
>
> Instead of removing such functionality, I think we should add
> more support for standard packaging formats to distutils, e.g.
> bdist_deb, bdist_pkg, etc.
>

+1 ... for this ...

> And for eggs, there should be a standard bdist_egg, written against
> the core distutils APIs (*), creating archives which other Python
> package managers can then use in whatever way they seem fit.
>

If not the eggs we have today ... the eggs we may incubate for tomorrow ... XD

> Just please don't tie eggs to one specific package manager,
> e.g. having to install setuptools just to run eggified packages
> is just plain wrong. The format itself doesn't require this and
> neither should the software shipped with those eggs.
>

... partly, because of this ... ;)

-- 
Regards,

Olemis.

Blog ES: http://simelo-es.blogspot.com/
Blog EN: http://simelo-en.blogspot.com/

Featured article:
Comandos : Pipe Viewer ... ¿Qué está pasando por esta tubería?