[stdlib-sig] Breaking out the stdlib

[Michael Foord]

Paul Moore wrote:
> 2009/9/14 Doug Hellmann <doug.hellmann at gmail.com>:
>   
>>> In thinking about this even more over the past year(ish) - I've
>>> wondered if the stdlib, and python-core should actually be *really*
>>> separated. I'm a huge fan of batteries included, but I can see the
>>> draw to a breakdown like this:
>>>
>>> python-core (no stdlib, interpreter, core language)
>>> python-stdlib (no core)
>>> python-full (the works)
>>>       
>> It would be interesting to know what stdlib modules are a minimum
>> requirement to install other packages with a tool like easy_install or pip.
>>  Those might need to stay in "core" so that installing core gives a
>> minimally functional system.
>>
>> Otherwise, I like the idea.
>>     
>
> Please remember that some establishments have restrictions that mean
> that tools like easy_install or pip cannot be used. In locked-down
> corporate environments, python-full is potentially all that will be
> available (and maybe very specific "blessed" environment-specific 3rd
> party modules).
>
> But if the stdlib can be split out in such a way that it doesn't
> adversely impact those environments, then maybe the extra flexibility
> to evolve it would be helpful. (I'd like to know how that aligns with
> the stated goal of stdlib stability, though - seems to me like it's
> one or the other...)
>   

For reference, where is that stated?

Michael

> Paul.
> _______________________________________________
> stdlib-sig mailing list
> stdlib-sig at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/stdlib-sig
>   


-- 
http://www.ironpythoninaction.com/
http://www.voidspace.org.uk/blog