> On Sep 16, 2014, at 9:16 PM, Vinay Sajip <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> From: Donald Stufft <[email protected]>
> 
> 
>> Technically that was a PEP 426 change.
> 
> Yes, and I haven't yet changed distlib to remove support for the older "foo 
> (>=X.Y)" form in the earlier version of the PEP.
> 
> 
>> Yea, my “problem” with distlib was always that I think Vinay and I wanted 
>> two different things from it. I wanted a
>> reference implementation that only came with the PEP standardized pieces, 
>> vinay wanted a library that implemented
>> things he could use for distitil.
> 
> Not quite - it's the other way around: distil is mainly a test bed for 
> distlib, to verify that the latter's functionality is usable in practice. 
> What I want is a rather more modern packaging system than we presently have - 
> for example having to download archives in order to determine dependencies 
> is, shall we say, sub-optimal. I want to move away from setup.py, towards 
> declarative metadata, while offering a migration path (which 3.3 packaging 
> didn't). While they're not perfect, distlib/distil allow me to install stuff 
> without executing setup.py on target systems a lot of the time, and ISTM 
> that's moving things in the right direction.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Vinay Sajip


I think that’s what we all want, the difference is that myself and some others 
don’t think it’s acceptable to build ontop of things which aren’t standardized. 
We’ve had ~15 years of implementation defined “standards”, I don’t think 
blessing officially something which adds more implementation defined standards 
is the right path forward. This means that things take longer (It took well 
over a year for PEP 440, which is just focused around version numbers!) but I 
think in the end it will end up with a solution that is far more robust and far 
less likely to end up in a situation where we are today where if you don’t use 
the exact same tooling as everyone else you’re likely to have problems.

That static metadata is one of the reasons *why* distlib isn’t suitable for the 
reference implementation. I have no idea if your specific implementation is 
good, bad, or somewhere in between but afaik there isn’t even a spec at all 
much less a general discussion about how it should be structured.

---
Donald Stufft
PGP: 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA

_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist  -  [email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig

Reply via email to