On 21 October 2015 at 14:55, David Cournapeau <courn...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Thomas Güttler > <guettl...@thomas-guettler.de> wrote: >> 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.
It's more useful to go the other direction and vendor a modern version of distutils inside setuptools: https://bitbucket.org/pypa/setuptools/issues/417/adopt-distutils distutils can then optionally be replaced wholesale at runtime, rather than having the internals be monkeypatched. > 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. We still need a migration path to modern metadata standards for everyone using distutils and setuptools - that's the side of things that caused major problems for both distribute and distutils2. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
