On Feb 11, 2006, at 6:12 PM, has wrote: > Bob Ippolito wrote: > >>>> Totally off-topic, but if you'd move to setuptools you can keep >>>> several separate packages, but users could install using >>>> 'easy_install appscript' which would then take care of the >>>> dependencies for you. >>> >>> I think setuptools is going to be a great solution and definitely >>> plan to more there eventually. For now though, the mpkg-based >>> distribution >> >> They're not mutually exclusive. Do both. Just don't use >> pkg_resources or entry points yet. > > Since that's more work for me, what benefit would setuptools > distros provide over the point-n-click package installer, which is > already very simple and works for anyone?
The major benefit is that people who develop setuptools-based applications can say (in their setup.py): install_requires=['appscript'] And then if someone does this: easy_install app_requiring_appscript Then it will Just Work. If you have binary eggs up, they don't even need a compiler to be installed. The work involved in supporting setuptools one or two lines per setup.py, so you really shouldn't even have to ask what the benefits are.. it's trivial. - from distutils.core import setup + from setuptools import setup setup(... + install_requires=['other', 'components', 'that', 'are', 'needed'], ) On top of that, you'll have to register your modules on Cheese Shop in order for this to be useful, but you should be doing that anyway. This is also trivial. # register on cheese shop, build an egg and source distribution, sign it all with GPG, and upload to cheese shop python setup.py register bdist_egg sdist upload -s And if you don't have setuptools installed already.. well, that's trivial too: python -c "import urllib; urllib.main()" \ http://peak.telecommunity.com/dist/ez_setup.py \ | sudo python - -U setuptools -bob _______________________________________________ Pythonmac-SIG maillist - Pythonmac-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pythonmac-sig