On 2009-11-11 18:04 PM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 12:18 AM, David Cournapeau<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 6:59 AM, Tarek Ziadé<[email protected]> wrote:
And let's drop the backward compat issues in these discussions, so we
don't burn out
in details.
That's the part I don't understand. If backward compatibility is not a
concern, why keeping distutils ? If you change the command and
Distribution class design, what remains of the original code ? You
are changing the API and the implementation (which are quite tangled
with each other in distutils case), almost none of the original code
would remain.
It really feels to me like you are getting the pain of backward
compatibility without the gains. What am I missing ?
What you are missing is that :
- you are convinced that distutils should be written from scratch. I
am not for many reasons. Some others are not either.
it won't happen. the only thing that could make it happen is the
replacement of distutils by another tool that
is used by the majority of the community for several years.
That's basically what David is suggesting when he says "rewrite". He doesn't
mean to replace distutils with another package named "distutils".
--
Robert Kern
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma
that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had
an underlying truth."
-- Umberto Eco
_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
