On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:05 PM, David Cournapeau <courn...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 11:00 PM, Tarek Ziadé <ziade.ta...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 3:42 PM, David Cournapeau <courn...@gmail.com> 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.
maybe so, but we need an answer with facts that are not mixing opinions. e.g. : "distutils2 is built with distutils code in a backward incompatible way" _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
