On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 12:32 AM, anatoly techtonik <techto...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Tarek Ziadé <ziade.ta...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Again, any new code work will not happen because 2.7 is due in less >>>> than a week. Things are happening in Distutils2. >>> >>> That doesn't solve the problem. Bootstrap script can be written in one >>> day. What we need is a consensus whatever this script is welcomed in >>> 2.7 or not? Who is the person to make the decision? >> >> Guido makes all final decisions. >> >> But before he does, in general, we work all together to find a >> consensus, because he can't take part in all >> discussions. In this process, I am the guy in charge for packaging >> matters in the stdlib, and I am trying to write the PEPs that reflects >> those consensus. But anyone is welcome to champion a PEP as long as we >> discuss it a bit here, and we agree that a new PEP is required. >> >> Feel free to make more points here in distutils-SIG about your idea, >> to explain the advantages of doing it >> and gain traction. > > So far I haven't seen any counter arguments against _bootstrap script_ > itself.
You certainly have not provided any argument *for* one. Again, what's the point compared to adding the bootstrap script ez_setup.py in your package. I also find the easiness argument rather dubious: especially on windows, the thing to give a user is an installer (.exe/.msi), not sources. That will solve more problems than any buggy bootstrap script requiring a working internet connection will ever do, cheers, David _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
