Thoughts on some stdlib modules

[Fredrik Lundh]

Robert Kern wrote:

>> (the Linux distributors know how to do this: look for good stuff that's
>> either actively maintained or simple and solid enough to live for a while,
>> make sure the licenses are good enough, bundle the latest and greatest
>> version, ship tested versions at regular intervals, update when necessary,
>> and pass bugs and patches upstream.  why not use the same approach
>> for Python's standard distribution?)
>
> The reason they don't is because making a distribution like this is a royal pain in the ass. It 
> makes no sense to make the Python standard distribution like this. Only insane people do this. I'm 
> one of them.

with enough volunteers, and a distributed development environment, nobody
needs to be insane.  if you try to channel everything through a small number of
CPython developers, everyone will loose their sanity, and the users will suffer.

> "Updating when necessary" is problematic and really requires proper package management. Python is 
> not an OS and cannot control all of the little factors that make package management feasible for 
> OS distributions to do.

"updating when necessary" means "adding new components to the standard library
when there are new stable releases available, and someone has time to run the test
suite and contact the upstream provider if necessary".

> What's more, once you *do* have proper package management on the platforms that you care about, it 
> doesn't matter what is or isn't in the standard distribution.

which means that at the moment, the best way to get a Python module into the
hands of users is to 1) provide windows installers that are compatible with the
"official" distribution, and 2) make it easy for downstream providers to package
your stuff, and leave it to them to take care of the rest.

but if the library in the standard distribution doesn't really matter, it should be
stripped down to minimum, to avoid overloading the CPython maintainers.

</F>