sick of distribute, setup, and all the rest...

[rusi]

On Nov 26, 6:40 pm, kj <no.em... at please.post> wrote:
> it's an all-out disgrace.
>
> when is python going to get a decent module distribution system???
>
> and don't tell me to do it myself: it's clear that the sorry
> situation we have now is precisely that too many programmers without
> the requisite expertise or policy-making authority have decided to
> pitch in.  This is something for GvR and his top Python core library
> team to do, because the problems are as much policy and institutional
> ones as they are technical (programming) ones.

I second this.

The only thing I disagree about is that GvR is 'top' enough to handle
this.
For example on my debian box my python system is a mishmash of debian-
apt-packages,
eggs, and hand-installed stuff.  [I believe I tried something like
pypi and did not succeed -- dont exactly remember]
So for systems like mine python and apt need to talk courteously to
each other -- not possible for the likes of u&me; hard even for the
likes of GvR.

Frankly, this is not great but could be much worse.  Some years ago
when I worked with Ruby on Rails the rails that came from debian was
an travesty.  After some suffering I gathered that the optimal
diplomacy was:
- ruby from apt
- gem hand installed
- rails from gem

While Ive never seen anything as ridiculous as the debian-rails in the
python world, its still always a hobson choice:  use a deb package
that will cleanly install, deinstall, upgrade etc but is out of date
or use a fresh and shiny egg that messes up the system.

Haskell's cabal/hackage system is just as much a mess
http://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/f3lh5/haskells_own_dll_hell/

In short the mess arises from this that each of these languages comes
up with its own package management system, neglecting the fact that
the language invariably exists in a larger ecosystem