[Python-Dev] Raising objections (was: setuptools in the stdlib)

[Phillip J. Eby]

At 01:33 AM 4/19/2006 -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 14:57 +1000, Anthony Baxter wrote:
> > I'm not sure how people would prefer this be handled. I don't think we
> > need to have a PEP for it - I don't see PEPs for ctypes, elementtree,
> > pysqlite or cProfile, either.
>
>Agreed.  If modules like these have a solid history of use outside the
>stdlib I don't think we need all the formality of a PEP to pull them in.
>I /do/ think however that we need to be diligent in documenting them so
>that people who don't follow python-dev (or the packages own development
>forums) will become aware of what they are and how to use them.  Correct
>me if I'm wrong, but I don't think any of the above are currently
>documented in the stdlib.

I thought that ctypes doc had been added, but I guess they're still 
in-progress.  The setuptools docs are definitely on my plan for conversion 
to Pythondoc format, as per my earlier post today asking where they should 
go in the overall doc layout.


> > I don't have a problem at all with setuptools going into the standard
> > library. It adds a whole pile of extremely useful functionality
> > (easy_install, in particular, is something that people have been
> > asking for, constantly, for YEARS). Making it an additional install
> > is just silly.
>
>I agree.  My one stupid nit is that I don't like the name
>'easy_install'.  I wish a better, non-underscored word could be found.

The long term plan is for a tool called "nest" to be offered, which will 
offer a command-line interface similar to that of the "yum" package 
manager, with commands to list, uninstall, upgrade, and perform other 
management functions on installed packages.  It's not likely to be 
available in time for the Python 2.5, release, but when it *is* available 
you'll just "python -m easy_install --upgrade setuptools" to get it.  :)