[Distutils] How to handle launcher script importability?

[PJ Eby]

On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Donald Stufft <donald at stufft.io> wrote:
> An example is the wsgiref from the standard library.

It's an example, alright, but not for your side.  ;-)  The wsgiref
library doesn't just implement the spec, it implements a ton of
utility classes for use with the spec.  The validator was almost an
afterthought grafted on later, borrowed from another project.  It
implements a framework with all sorts of features that are not
technically part of the spec, but are just useful if you want to
implement the spec.  Very few of the classes, methods, etc. in the
entire package are specified by the spec, except in the sense that
many of them match a calling signature defined in the PEP.  (The PEP
doesn't specify any method names, except for things like read() on
file-like objects.)

IOW, wsgiref is a collection of generally useful tools for anybody
doing things with the spec, as an combination of "examples of how to
do this" and "ready-to-use code for working with the spec".

Personally, I'm very happy to see Vinay's extensions, because they are
IMO important validations of whether the new specs are likely to be
useful for replacing all of setuptools' functionality.  There are
people who need to mount eggs and have their extensions run, so if it
wasn't possible to build tools that support them under the new specs
(whether that support is required by the spec or not), that would
still be a reason to use setuptools -- meaning, IMO, that the new spec
effort is failing to create a unified packaging world.