On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 2:55 AM, Tarek Ziadé <ta...@ziade.org> wrote: > On 5/16/12 3:58 AM, Chris McDonough wrote: >> >> Adding two more (packaging and distutils2) which are similarly >> semi-documented and which don't even solve the problems that the previous >> ones do would serve no purpose, and baking them into Python itself will mean >> they can't evolve in important ways. > > > Oh, I think I need to answer to this too since you said you wanted to help. > Packaging is not intended to be similar to setuptools in its features. > > For instance we won't provide console scripts or entry points. The first one > because 'script' is the same feature (except there's an indirection and I > said before we could mimic this)
I don't know what this means. Will we have something functionally-equivalent to console-scripts? Or will we have something more similar to the old distutils scripts functionality. If the later, then I doubt that packaging will work well with buildout. Jim _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
