On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 5 October 2012 17:04, Daniel Holth <dho...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> ~1300 of the ~20000 packages on pypi have trouble using setup.py as >> their build system / metadata source format. > > That's interesting information. Do you know in what way they have > trouble with setup.py? Do they not use it at all, do they need > features it doesn't provide, or what?
I'm basing this only on Vinay's numbers of how-many-packages-can-generate-a-yaml. It's probably mostly packages that import something he didn't have installed inside setup.py, but I don't have a good way to find out exactly what is wrong with each one. An awful lot of packages do work fine; I don't have an automated way to detect that either. >> People have to install setuptools against their will because there is >> only one implementation of the pkg_resources API and 75% of the >> packages on pypi require setuptools. > > I wish we could separate pkg_resources and setuptools. I'd love to > know which packages needed each (but I suspect that's not a question > that can be answered without looking at the actual code). Ignoring the > egg support aspects, pkg_resources is something that could be replaced > - a reasonable proportion of distlib offers alternatives to the > pkg_resources code, and more could be added. On the other hand, > setuptools per se is almost entirely a build time facility, so > shouldn't be needed at runtime (and so using it for build should be > relatively unimportant). And there is a good bit of pkg_resources.py that is only needed at install time, if you don't mind giving up [console_scripts] dependency loading. It would probably be a win to only populate working_set lazily at least. Whatever you did would probably mean the loss of a feature for some users, but that might be OK if they knew what to expect. _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
