On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 21:52, P.J. Eby <[email protected]> wrote: > Making a separate setup script for Python 3, at least for setuptools itself, > if not having a general convention for that, since other packages may want > to ship 2+3 stuff in the same package.
The typical setup script will look exactly the same under python 2 and python 3. There is no need for separate scripts in the general usecase. If you want to run 2to3 automatically, all you need to do is set up build_py_2to3 instead of build_2to3, that's the only difference, and that's easily fixed with a importexception. This goes pretty much for setuptools also. The setup3.py script will more or less work under python2 as well. > Or, in the alternative, using version testing in setup.py to run an > alternate script for Python 3. You don't need alternative scripts. setuptools is an exception, because it depends on itself, providing a catch22 situation. > I'm sorry you feel that way, as I've been *trying* to help. I just still > don't get what the problem is. If I were porting setuptools to Python 3, I > would *want* it to be circular, even if I had to hack on it a little at > first. So I have a hard time understanding why you don't. But it CAN NOT be circular under Python 3. > Maybe if I were trying to port it, I would get what problem you're having, > or maybe I would just keep right on going and not notice. I don't know. You will have it and I explained in the mail I sent as a start of this discussion. If I was unclear, please tell me what you didn't understand. > I've been trying to find out what exactly is stopping you and just can't > seem to wrap my brain around it, any more than you've been able to about the > reverse. > Mostly because your questions aren't pinpointing what you want to know. It is pinpointing them exactly. I want to know why setuptools need to depends on setuptools. Your answer, as I can understand it is for convenience, and so that it serves as a test and example of it's own features. The fact that is serves as a test of it's own features is another pain. That was a big reason for the difficulty of porting, as even when testcases all passed, not all features worked. So I have to say that although it sounds reasonable, I think it's misguided. >> Eggs are not easier to install, on the contrary, I have tried and >> failed a couple of times, and ended up using the source install >> instead. > > ...seems to indicate that your question was actually about eggs, not > other-than-source distributions in general. Which probably is why I said eggs... > The eggs are there, on the other hand, > for ez_setup.py to download. (Not to mention buildout's bootstrap script, > and other tools that depend on setuptools and want to have an automated > overall install process.) OK, I wonder if there is a way around that. If not, then as far as I can see, there is no way to install or develop with setuptools smoothly in Python 3. -- Lennart Regebro: Python, Zope, Plone, Grok http://regebro.wordpress.com/ +33 661 58 14 64 _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
