Lennart Regebro wrote:
2009/11/12 David Cournapeau <da...@ar.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp>:
I am trying to understand what is 'nebulous' about our claims. We have
given plenty of hard and concrete examples of things which are
problematic in distutils. The major progress in our build issues have
been achieved by dropping distutils. Up to now, the only people who have
claimed that distutils can solve our problems are the people who are not
involved at all with our projects, and the people who claim distutils
cannot solve our problems are the people involved with it. That's odd to
say the least.
Now, I am ready to accept that we are missing the big picture and the
rest of the community knows more about it. But I certainly have not
seen strong arguments to believe it so far.
Look, there is only one way this argument can be solved, and that is
by building something better than distutils. Honestly. Now, I'm sure
as heck not going to spend time on that, and Tarek don't think it's a
good idea, so it's up to you guys.
I think you're missing the point of our statements. We're not asking you to work
or not work on anything. Guido asked, in response to a comment from our
community: "Is the work on distutils-sig going to be enough?" And our answer is
that no, it's probably not. It's not addressing our most significant problems.
David's work, e.g. on numscons, is helping, but it is still constrained by the
requirement of working within distutils' framework.
Bitching that distutils needs to be scratched and rewritten is not
going to help. You need to DO it.
Pardon us for sincerely answering the questions asked of us.
--
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 - Distutils-SIG@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
