On 16 May 2012 07:55, Tarek Ziadé <ta...@ziade.org> wrote: > I'd suggest you list what you can't do with "packaging" today and we work > through that list to point which features are missing and should be > developed *outside* the standard lib, and which ones are in "packaging" or > should be
This would be a very good step - but rather than simply getting responses in the mailing list, can I suggest that we need some sort of central location where the features still outstanding for packaging can be tracked. Call it a roadmap if you like. Maybe it should be a PEP - simply because I can't think of a better place to put it, but I'm open to suggestions (I don't think the bug tracker is the right place, fwiw). At the moment, the biggest issue I see is that there are lots of discussions about what people believe is missing, but nothing clearly documenting what's intended to be there (and what is not - for example, your comment about entry points). As a starter, my key "missing requirement" is support for binary distributions - whether this is a new "universal" format, or whether it is reusing the bdist_wininst/bdist_msi formats, I don't really care, but it needs to be formalised with a migration path, backward compatibility support considered, etc. > IOW: packaging should only be the common basis and provide a basic installer > - not a full fledge tool you can use to replace the most advanced setuptools > features. And we want it pluggable enough so people can build pluggable > features on the top of it, like Eric explained earlier > > Does that make sense ? I would assume as a first guess that it should replace all of distutils, though? Ideally there should be no reason for people to use distutils for anything once packaging is available - am I right? Paul. _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig