On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 11:00 PM, Tarek Ziadé <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 is not what I said. The judgement you mention was clearly stated as my own opinion, not as an uncontroversial point. David _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
