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

[Walter Dörwald]

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. 

If I'm not calling shared libraries from Python I can ignore ctypes. If 
I'm not doing XML, I can ignore elementtree. If I'm not doing SQL I can 
ignore pysqlite and if I'm not interested in profiling I can ignore 
cProfile. But setuptools will potentially affect anyone that uses 
third-party modules/packages.

And ctypes, elementtree and pysqlite are mature packages. setuptools 
isn't even finished yet.

> 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
> 
> Sure, it's possible that some people with extremely complicated 
> distutils scripts may find they need to update them.

Wouldn't I need at least have to change "from distutils.core import 
setup" to "from setuptools import setup"? Or to something like:

try:
    import ez_setup
except ImportError:
    import distutils.core as tools
else:
    ez_setup.use_setuptools()
    import setuptools as tools

for backwards compatibility reasons?

> But the 
> alternative to that is complete paralysis - and I can't say that the 
> current state of distutils is at all something to make Python happy. 
> 
> I started refactoring some of the ugliness out of the internals of 
> distutils last year, but was completely stymied by the demand that no 
> existing setup.py scripts be broken. This means that the people who 
> are experts with the current code are fine, but everyone else has to 
> pay the price.

Servus,
    Walter