Am 22.10.2015 um 09:28 schrieb anatoly techtonik: > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 10:10 PM, Thomas Güttler > <guettl...@thomas-guettler.de <mailto:guettl...@thomas-guettler.de>> wrote: > > Am 21.10.2015 um 18:46 schrieb Chris Barker: > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Thomas Güttler > <guettl...@thomas-guettler.de <mailto:guettl...@thomas-guettler.de> > <mailto:guettl...@thomas-guettler.de <mailto:guettl...@thomas-guettler.de>>> > wrote: > > > > I ask myself: Why a standard? I see that a standard is very > important if there will be > > several implementations (for example TCP/IP, protocols like HTTP, > SMTP, IMAP, ...) > > > > But here a single implementation for creating and installing > packages would be enough. > > > > Is a standard really needed? > > > > > > Yes -- because of exactly what you say above -- we really can't have a > SINGLE build system that will well support everything -- > > the common use-caes, sure (distutils already does that), but when it > comes to bulding complex packages like numpy, sciPy, etc, it's really > inadequate. > > What happens if the common use cases are inadequate? > > My guess: re-inventing the same stuff over and over again. Once in numpy, > once in scipy ... > > Why should it be impossible to get all the needs of numpy and scipy into > setuptools? > > I have a dream: For packaging and building package provides only > **data**. Data is condition-less: No single "if", "def" or method call. Just > data: json or yaml ... > > Even for complex packages. > > This data gets processed by setuptools. I don't see a need for more than > one library doing this. Plugins are nice and can solve edge cases. > > > setuptools is one bloated piece of code that contains too much features. I'd > prefer more lean and mean package.
Yes, your are rigth. I'd like a lean and mean package, too. Regards, Thomas Güttler -- http://www.thomas-guettler.de/ _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
