On Feb 9, 2006, at 3:55 AM, Paul Moore wrote: > If routes *needed* setuptools functionality, then fine - but explain > this prominently somewhere: "This package uses setuptools, which is > currently in alpha status - there may be issues installing or using > the software. If you hit any problems, please report them to the > distils-sg, and thank you for helping to test setuptools". But clearly > routes does not need setuptolols functionality (or the Routes tests > aren't complete - as Joe said that all the tests run). So why not > provide a non-setuptools build, for users who don't want to fight with > the bleeding edge?
It's mainly because Routes is relied on by quite a few other setuptools-enabled packages, so being able to easy install it was necessary. I didn't have a non-setuptools build mainly because I couldn't see how to setup a setup.py file in such a way that I could make both versions at once. I'm assuming I'd need two setup.py's and to swap them in the build depending on if it was a setuptools build or not. Not a lot of fun, but I can see the utility of it for those not wishing to grapple with setuptools. Does this mean there should perhaps be some criteria or a recommendation to developers using setuptools on when they should still supply a non-setuptools build of their project? - Ben _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
