On 7 December 2015 at 17:07, Ronny Pfannschmidt <opensou...@ronnypfannschmidt.de> wrote: > That's a straw man, this has enough inconsistency potential to break many > edge cases in ugly ways, > So global setup is out.
No, global set up *isn't* out - the inevitable edge cases won't matter to an application integrator if none of the components they're using hit them, and installation related problems have the virtue of being relatively straightforward to pick up in a continuous integration system. Using such a switch wouldn't be the right fit for everyone, but that's not the same as it being entirely useless. > Projects themselves can really just switch to pip commands, same goes for > packagers and other tool makers > > Explicit is better than implicit, and in this case it also won't cost > additional maintenance on setuptools. > Please keep in mind, that setuptools is completely on volunteer time, and > the time given to it is scarce. Sure, that's why any decision on the desirability of this feature would be up to Jason as the setuptools lead. However, there's a trade-off to consider here, which is that offering this kind of global installer switch may help to lower the priority of some other easy_install enhancement requests. That's a risk assessment trade-off on future bug reports against attempted pip support vs future RFEs against easy_install itself, as well as a priority assessment against other open changes proposed for setuptools. Those assessments may well come down on the side of "not worth the hassle", but the scope of the proposed change still falls a long way short of being a "maintenance horror". Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
