On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 17 July 2013 16:46, Daniel Holth <dho...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > * Are we saying "use setuptools" for everyone, or still only if you need >> > it >> > (asking since there is a stub about installing setuptools but the simple >> > example doesn't have a direct need for it ATM, but could use >> > find_packages() >> > and such)? >> >> Setuptools is the preferred distutils-derived system. distutils should >> no longer be considered morally superior. > > > Personally, I still reserve judgement on setuptools. But that's mainly if > you actually use its features (you should carefully consider and understand > the implications if you use its script wrapper functionality, for example). > > I see no reason to knee-jerk use it if you don't use any of its > functionality, though. I may be in a minority on that, though :-)
One code path. Plus all your pip-using users are using it anyway. Many have seemed to not realize that "having dependencies" is one of "its features". >> >> The MEBS idea, or a simple setup.py emulator and a contract with the >> installer on which commands it will actually call, will eventually let >> you do a proper job of choosing build systems. > > > By the way, what *does* MEBS mean? I've seen a few people use the term, but > never found an explanation... It stands for the "Meta Build System (not an actual project)" which I proposed last September. A suitably nuts person could just layout their project like a wheel, edit the .dist-info by hand, zip and publish that. _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
