On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Paul Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 17/03/2008, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >The PEP suggests that other package managers also benefit. How do they > > >benefit if the bootstrap script installs setuptools? > > > > Because those other package managers depend, in fact, on setuptools, > > or at least pkg_resources... which was why the original proposal was > > to just include pkg_resources in the first place. :) > > I'm puzzled. We seem to be talking about adding a module to the stdlib > whose basic function is to download and install setuptools? How is > this better than just including setuptools in the stdlib?
I'm not in favor of this either. > Personally, I have no problem per se with including setuptools in the > stdlib. Maybe that means I miss the subtle benefit of this approach... > > I'm -1 on having a module which just installs setuptools. > I'm +0 on including pkg_resources (as described in PEP 365) in the stdlib. > > I'm +lots on someone giving a clear explanation of the meaning and > interrelationship of the various terms involved in this discussion > (setuptools, easy_install, pkg_resources, eggs, "package managers" as > distinct from setuptools, etc etc) so that the discussion gets some > much-needed clarity :-( Right. But finding someone who can explain all this is apparently hard. All the owners of package managers seem busy... > I'm -1 on adding anything until PEP 365 is updated to match what is > being proposed, and then that amended PEP is submitted for discussion. Well, if we can reach consensus here first on what to put into PEP 365 first I'd be fine with updating the PEP as an afterthought, especially of the consensus also comes with working code (hopefully less than 2500 lines :-). -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
