I'll give you that number(?) but ... mercurial, docutils, jinjia2 pygments, sphinx, lxml, nose, cherrypy, django, pyqt ... all they don't need/use setuptools: that 25% left is quite an interesting field to play in.
If setuptools was "significant packaging innovation" do you think people wouldn't have embraced already? Allow me to call *that* a nonsense. thanks ps. my experience is on the field, so please give me the credit of many years of experience if I'm say I'm not that keen on "auto" tools: in this kiss rules. On Tue 13/11/12 17:35, "Daniel Holth" dho...@gmail.com wrote: > Setuptools! You would avoid 75% of pypi. It is nonsense to pretend > that setuptools is not a significant packaging innovation. Its main > flaw is that it is based on distutils, a non-extensible design. > distutils2 is a lot of setuptools and distutils code with the > plug-ability taken out. > > Perhaps I should say that I would like distutils to become as > relevant to packaging as the cgi module is to web development. It is > not a short-term goal. > > _______________________________________________ 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
