Phillip J. Eby wrote: > At 01:06 AM 1/22/2008 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> Steve Holden wrote: >>> Christian Heimes wrote: >>>> Steve Holden wrote: >>>>> Maybe once we get easy_install as a part of the core (so there's no need >>>>> to find and run ez_setup.py to start with) things will start to improve. >>>>> This is an issue the whole developer community needs to take seriously >>>>> if we are interested in increasing take-up. >>>> setuptools and easy_install won't be included in Python 2.6 and 3.0: >>>> http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0365/ >>>> >>> Yes, and yet another release (two releases) will go out without easy >>> access to the functionality in Pypi. PEP 365 is a good start, but Pypi >>> loses much of its point until new Python users get access to it "out of >>> the box". I also appreciate that resource limitations are standing in >>> the way of setuptools' inclusion (is there something I can do about >>> that?) Just to hammer the point home, however ... >> Have another look at the rationale given in PEP 365 - it isn't the >> resourcing to do the work that's a problem, but the relatively slow >> release cycle of the core. >> >> By including pkg_resources in the core (with the addition of access to >> pure Python modules and packages on PyPI), we would get a simple, stable >> base for Python packaging to work from, and put users a single standard >> command away from the more advanced (but also more volatile) features of >> easy_install and friends. > > By the way, if we're actually going to get that into 2.6, it would be > good for the PEP to actually be approved before then. :) > Yes, I noticed it wasn't yet approved and wondered whether this was simply an oversight or whether there is still work to do before it can be approved.
> With respect to Steve's comments about out-of-the-box usability, it > should be noted that when you bootstrap a package with pkg_resources, > it should be possible to include other command-line arguments after > the package specifier. So for example: > > python -m pkg_resources setuptools SomePackage==1.2 > > would download and install setuptools, and run its "bootstrap script" > with "SomePackage==1.2" as a command-line argument. And setuptools' > bootstrap script is basically easy_install with some extra code to > make sure the setuptools egg gets installed too. > > In other words, with PEP 365 in place, "python -m pkg_resources > setuptools" is basically a way to say "easy_install" without needing > setuptools installed. > Well that's probably a simple enough recipe to include in the distribution, wouldn't you say? > (Heck, if what you really want is to have easy_install support in > 2.6, we could just as easily bundle an easy_install.py that asks for > an install of setuptools if it's not already present.) > Would the easiest way to do this be to insert a default dependency on setuptools? regards Steve -- Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/ _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com