The problem is that too many people arguing for eggs do this by sending nastygrams, which doesn't really provide much motivation for doing anything about it (I don't do asshole-driven development). The public review PIL got a couple a minutes ago matches some of the private mail I've gotten:
no egg - worst seen ever, remove it from pypi or provide an egg (jensens, 2009-10-05, 0 points) </F> On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 6:24 PM, Chris Withers <ch...@simplistix.co.uk> wrote: > Fredrik Lundh wrote: >> >> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Chris Withers <ch...@simplistix.co.uk> >> wrote: >>> >>> Klein Stéphane wrote: >>>> >>>> Resume : >>>> 1. first question : why PIL package in "pypi" don't work ? >>> >>> Because Fred Lundh have his package distributions unfortunate names that >>> setuptools doesn't like... >> >> It used to support this, but no longer does. To me, that says more >> about the state of setuptools than it does about the state of PIL, >> which has been using the same naming convention for 15 years. > > Yep, but it is now in the minority, and consistency in package naming is > always good. > > Would there be any problems for you in naming the distribution in a > setuptools-friendly way from the next point release? > > cheers, > > Chris > > -- > Simplistix - Content Management, Batch Processing & Python Consulting > - http://www.simplistix.co.uk > _______________________________________________ Image-SIG maillist - Image-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/image-sig
