On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Tarek Ziadé <ta...@ziade.org> wrote: > 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.
That's exactly what buildout needs. Jim -- Jim Fulton http://www.linkedin.com/in/jimfulton Jerky is better than bacon! http://www.dublinstore.com/ _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig