On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 09:31:46AM +0100, Georg Brandl wrote: > Chris Withers schrieb: > > Fred Drake wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 10:23 AM, Chris Withers <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>> setup() > >>> > >>> ...would get everyone from the static metadata file, while any keyword > >>> parameters to setup would override the appropriate setting from the static > >>> metadata file... > >> > >> I'd rather see the static data in setup.cfg and no setup.py if there's > >> no need for custom Python code. > > > > I think "python setup.py install" is so idiomatic that it seems silly to > > break it for the sake of two lines of python. There's also an element of > > "explicit is better than implicit" in the feel of actually running > > setup.py... > > Has anyone already suggested something like "python -m setup install"? > It would be rather similar and explicit, too.
I'm sure that approach was mentioned in one of Tarek's very early proposals. IIRC it went away because people didn't like the idea of a built-in installer/uninstaller in distutils, but I'm not sure what the arguments where. Personally I have no objection against it, if it would means you can omit setup.py if it's only going to call 'setup()' then why not. Floris _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
