On 5/16/12 3:19 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
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.
Please explain us exactly what you mean with this feature.
What we want to have in packaging is the old distutils srcipt feature,
with an extra option:
a way to point a callable instead of a module, and then a wrapper like
setuptools does.
If you need something else, please explain what it is.
(there's no need to declare an entry point and iterate over all
projects, just to find back a
callable to run your script, right? you can just... import the callable)
Jim
_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
