On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 7:07 AM, Eric Smith<e...@trueblade.com> wrote: > Paul Moore wrote: >> >> 2009/7/8 P.J. Eby <p...@telecommunity.com>: >>> >>> If it were being driven by setuptools, I'd have just implemented it >>> myself >>> and presented it as a fait accompli. I can't speak to Tarek's motives, >>> but >>> I assume that, as stated in the PEP, the primary driver is supporting the >>> distutils being able to uninstall things, and secondarily to allow other >>> tools to be built on top of the API. >> >> My understanding is that all of the various distutils PEPs were driven >> by the "packaging summit" ay PyCon. The struggle here seems to be to >> find *anyone* from that summit who will now comment on the discussion >> :-( > > I was there, and I've been commenting! > > There might have been more discussion after the language summit and the one > open space event I went to. But the focus as I recall was static metadata > and version specification. When I originally brought up static metadata at > the summit, I meant metadata describing the sources in the distribution, so > that we can get rid of setup.py's. From that metadata, I want to be able to > generate .debs, .rpms, .eggs, etc.
I agree wholeheartedly. Getting rid of setup.py for most packages should be a goal IMHO. Most packages don't need anything fancy, and static metadata are so much easier to use compared to setup.py/distutils for 3rd party interop. There was a discussion about how to describe/find the list of files to form a distribution (for the different sdist/bdist_* commands), but no agreement was reached. Some people strongly defend the setuptools feature to get the list of files from the source control system, in particular. http://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/2009-April/011226.html David _______________________________________________ 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