On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Vinay Sajip <[email protected]> wrote: > Lennart Regebro <regebro <at> gmail.com> writes: > >> It makes no sense to have a tools for developers that does everything >> including running building, running tests and packaging, and another >> tool that does nothing but installs, and creates wheel packages. >> >> Making wheels should be a part of the tool using for packaging, not >> the tool used for installing. > > Don't forget that developers are users too - they consume packages as well as > developing them. I see no *conceptual* harm in a tool that can do > archive/build/install, as long as it can do them well (harder to do than to > say, > I know). And > I see that there is a place for just-installation functionality which does not > require the presence of a build environment. But a single tool could have > multiple guises, just as some Unix tools of old behaved differently according > to > which link they were invoked from (the linked-to executable being the same). > > Isn't our present antagonism to the idea of having one ring to bind them all > due to the qualities specific to that ring (setup.py, calls to setup())?
I really think so. distutils is a bad implementation. This has a lot more to do with how it works internally than how its command line interface looks. We can have new tools that do everything with a single command but really delegate the work out to separate decoupled and hopefully pluggable pieces underneath. _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
