[Python-ideas] Moving development out of the standard library

Tarek Ziadé ziade.tarek at gmail.com
Mon Jun 7 21:04:13 CEST 2010

On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 8:50 PM, Ian Bicking <ianb at colorstudy.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 1:42 PM, Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 09:35, Ian Bicking <ianb at colorstudy.com> wrote:
>> [SNIP]
>> > Another alternative is to simply not make improvements to the standard
>> > library beyond a very well-defined set of appropriate functionality.
>> > This
>> > would be much closer to the status quo.  Defining what categories would
>> > be
>> > "appropriate" would be contentious, I am sure, but would sharply focus
>> > future discussions.
>> I personally would love to see this happen. Having a more clear focus
>> for the stdlib would be a good thing in my opinion since as of right
>> now it's just what the group thinks it is at that point.
> Indeed, each person projects different ideas and motivations onto the
> standard library and I don't see a great deal of shared understanding about
> what it is.

There's one thing that is clear though: Distutils is in the standard
library, and it would
be a non sense not to have Distutils2 included to replace it.

While I understand your motivations not to see Pip included in the
standard library,
I will strongly object the exclusion Distutils2 from the standard library.

I have agreed to temporarily develop Distutils2 outside the stdlib
with the sole condition
that it will be included back as soon as it is ready, because we badly
need such a system
in a vanilla Python.

Distutils2 is the place where we are implementing the PEP that where
accepted lately,
and its inclusion to the standard library will provide a working
packaging system
for Python (that is *batteries included*) and a blessed playground for
third party
packaging tools.


Tarek Ziadé | http://ziade.org

More information about the Python-ideas mailing list