Le mardi 22 novembre 2005 à 17:05 -0500, Phillip J. Eby a écrit : > And over the last few months, I believe we've also succeeded in stomping > most of the issues that people had with getting solid non-root > installations on their Linux distributions. So the reasons for developers > to prefer their dependencies to be managed as eggs will only improve over > time, as the egg system allows Python developers to control and introspect > their dependencies, rather than keeping that information hidden behind > diverse platform-specific packaging tools.
This is useful for non-root installations, but it is only a hassle when you are making .deb's. Here, dependencies are already handled, and you rely on the system to provide correct versions for packages you depend upon. > It's only "competitive" if you feel that there must be only one way to do > it. (And if you do feel that way, then it also should be obvious that eggs > are the superior solution, since they don't take away any capabilities of > the old, only provide new ones.) They only introduce more complexity, instead of bringing real features. > Obviously, every individual distribution would like to have Python packages > conform to their individual system. However, on the whole, it is clearly > better for the Python developer to have practical dependency management > that doesn't tie their efforts to a single platform, packaging system, or > distribution. And that's why there are things like dh_python to adapt python distutils installations to be compliant to the Debian way of things. However, eggs make it so complicated that the adaptation layer would be unmaintainable. This is a good reason to think the whole egg system should be avoided. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette /\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom