On 05.10.2012 19:24, Paul Moore 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? > >> For the ~1300 broken packages, distutils is awful because it is not >> really extensible, though setuptools tried. > > Yeah, that's the common complaint. Plus, "it's too extensible" :-) > (From people trying to change it who have to deal with all the fancy > hacks people have done). > >> 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).
Debian and Ubuntu have a (deb) binary package python-pkg-resources. 817 packages do use python-setuptools for the build, and 340 binary packages do depend on python-pkg-resources. so it's not just a few, but nearly 50%. see apt-cache rdepends python-pkg-resources for the full list. Matthias PS: are there really ~20000 packages on pypi, or do you count old versions too? _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig