On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Thomas Güttler < guettl...@thomas-guettler.de> wrote:
> Am 21.10.2015 um 13:28 schrieb Ionel Cristian Mărieș: > >> >> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Thomas Güttler < >> guettl...@thomas-guettler.de <mailto:guettl...@thomas-guettler.de>> >> wrote: >> >> >> Why not deprecate and remove distutils? >> >> >> Should we or can we? There was an attempt at that, called distutils2. >> I'd love to hear what people have learnt from that. >> >> And if now-days walking around with pants instead of only underwear is >> the way to go, should we still have underwear >> under the pants? I think yes :-) In other words, setuptools uses >> distutils. >> > > ok, at the moment setuptools uses distutils. > > Why not melt them together into **one** underwear-pants-module? > What do you hope getting from that ? distutils is in the stdlib, so cannot change easily, and even if putting setuptools in the stdlib were possible, you would now need to handle different versions of setuptools for different versions of python. On top of this, the goal of lots of efforts around packaging is to allow people to move away from distutils/setuptools, as the underlying design is fundamentally difficult to extend. David
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
