On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 3:42 PM, David Cournapeau <[email protected]> wrote: [..] >>> >>> I think the following in uncontroversial: >>> >>> distutils and setuptools are useful packaging solutions which have >>> significant shortcoming, both design and implementation-wise. Some >>> people believe the distutils/setuptools/distribute issues can be >>> solved by gradually deprecating code and adding new features, other >>> people (me, but I am not alone) believe it would be better and faster >>> to rewrite something from scratch because the distutils code is >>> unmanageable and too complicated. >> >> You keep saying that for years, but in the meantime, the code was cleaned. > > I was just summarizing the situation to answer the original question > from the OP. There was absolutely no judgement in the text I have > written.
You are judging that distutils code is unmanageable and too complicated, and stating that this is an uncontroversial statement about the current situation. This would have perfectly answered to the question 3 years ago, but this is not the reality anymore. So I am just describing the situation as it is in reality, because I know exactly the status of Distutils. _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
