[Python-Dev] "setuptools has divided the Python community"

[Barry Warsaw]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mar 25, 2009, at 11:16 AM, David Cournapeau wrote:

> It fails for software I am directly involved in, or maybe the layer
> just below: for example, there is no way for me to get a python 2.6 on
> my distribution (Ubuntu), so I cannot easily test the python projects
> I am involved in for python 2.6.

At least it's better now so that if you install it from source and  
throw a bunch of modules into site-packages, you won't kill your  
distro. :)

> I already mention this on the distutils ML, but IMO, the only workable
> solution is to have a system which makes it *possible* for OS
> distributors to package in whatever they see fit (.deb, .rpm, .dmg,
> .exe, .msi). Distutils, as of today, makes it much harder than it is
> for non trivial softwares (documentation, controlling what goes where,
> etc...). That's something we can hope to improve. Again, I will take
> the autoconf example: it has no policy, and can be used for different
> kind of situations, because you can (if you want) control things in a
> very fine-grained manner. Automatic, 'native' installers which are
> well integrated into every system, this seems so far from reach I
> don't see how this can even be considered.

I agree.  With my developer's hat on, I can't know all the crazy  
places my package will be used, so distutils is great because at least  
it's easy for me to write a setup.py, push my package to some place,  
and share it with other developers.  My hope of course is that the  
setup.py is useful to distros who want to include my package in their  
offering.

Barry

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)

iQCVAwUBScq4enEjvBPtnXfVAQIOpAP/bJsMn7iKyIOhm8iGxWfeNhtaesCXy2MZ
eU8KyI0xvtACleLzzZd8mX79QyNw02WTfct6BX83NHuBs2Kyu6S0jjNMfz6zzSNs
Se4qjQTu8Iw/JPCyxq6XOiTQaVkbtSNs93xAWjHfeX6PumkKn+qd5Lx3KuBPDE+X
vcTPOlq0X20=
=UsYX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----