On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 at 10:01 M.-A. Lemburg <m...@egenix.com> wrote: > On 11.02.2016 17:48, Donald Stufft wrote: > > > >> On Feb 11, 2016, at 11:08 AM, M.-A. Lemburg <m...@egenix.com> wrote: > >> > >> Then why not fix distutils' sdist command to add the needed > >> information to PKG-INFO and rely on it ? > >> > >> Or perhaps add a new distutils command which outputs the needed > >> information as JSON file and fix the sdist command to call this > >> by default ? > >> > >> There are many ways to address such issues, but defining a new > >> standard for every issue we have instead of fixing the existing > >> distutils implementation is not the best way to approach this. > > > > > > The very nature of distutils (later inherited by setuptools) is the > problem to > > be honest. The reason we're adding new standards and moving away from > these > > systems is that fixing them is essentially fundamentally altering them. > > Of course. We're doing that constantly in Python, so why not > in distutils too ? >
IMO, I think we should work towards a goal where we strip distutils down to only the parts that are required to be provided by Python to make it easier to maintain. Distutils served its purpose, but now I think we should push what distutils does out to the community to allow for more rapid updates and easier maintenance and evolution which will better align with things like compiler release schedules and support alternative compilers and such more easily.
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
