Switching python-setuptools to distribute
I've been a comaintainer of the python-setuptools package for a long time and recently became the owner when icon relinquished it. It is currently a tumultuous time for distributing python modules with a new and active maintainer for distutils inside of the python stdlib and a fork of setuptools being worked on. That fork is named distribute and there are two branches of development on it. The 0.7 branch aims to implement API, metadata, and other features that will make packaging python modules for upstream building and distribution easier while being more concerned with the effects this has on Linux packagers. The 0.6 branch intends to be compatible with the current seutptools package but to fix bugs and introduce features that are backwards compatible and oft requested. This branch is being actively maintained by a core group of five committers including the new distutils maintainer. By contrast, setuptools is maintained by a single maintainer who often has little time to work on it. When installed, the 0.6 branch takes over the setuptools and pkg_resources python modules. The reasoning is that distribute-0.6 provides the same API as setuptools and is meant to replace it. If the module was installed differently, consuming code (all the setup.py modules in any setuptools using package as well as code that relies on setuptools features at runtime) would all need to change their import statements to use the new names explicitly. This choice is being made upstream by the distribute project. Upstream, the python community has viewed the fork favorably but since it's not part of python proper, the only one with say in the matter is the setuptools author. He has not been willing to abandon the setuptools module but at the same time hasn't gained any more free time to work on setuptools. Several other Linux distributions (gentoo and arch) have started shipping distribute-0.6 as the source of their setuptools package. I am thinking of doing the same for rawhide and pushing the change to older Fedora releases if bugs are reported that are fixed in distribute but not in seutptools as having a responsive upstream that cares about distribution packaging issues is a great plus for us. I raised this plan on fedora-python-devel and received one positive comment and no negative feedback so I'm just mentioning it here so a broader audience can ask any questions or raise any issues before putting this into effect. -Toshio pgpJ88btQCFCr.pgp Description: PGP signature -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Switching python-setuptools to distribute
2009/10/12 Toshio Kuratomi : > I've been a comaintainer of the python-setuptools package for a long time > and recently became the owner when icon relinquished it. It is currently a > tumultuous time for distributing python modules with a new and active > maintainer for distutils inside of the python stdlib and a fork of > setuptools being worked on. FWIW, as a former maintainer of the package, I'm all for the switch to distribute. Cheers, -- Konstantin Ryabitsev Montréal, Québec -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Switching python-setuptools to distribute
On 10/12/2009 11:42 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > Several other Linux distributions (gentoo and arch) have started shipping > distribute-0.6 as the source of their setuptools package. I am thinking of > doing the same for rawhide You might want to post to distributions mailing list @ fd.o and get other distributions feedback as well. Rahul -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Switching python-setuptools to distribute
2009/10/12 Toshio Kuratomi : > I've been a comaintainer of the python-setuptools package for a long time > and recently became the owner when icon relinquished it. It is currently a > tumultuous time for distributing python modules with a new and active > maintainer for distutils inside of the python stdlib and a fork of > setuptools being worked on. > > That fork is named distribute and there are two branches of development on > it. The 0.7 branch aims to implement API, metadata, and other features that > will make packaging python modules for upstream building and distribution > easier while being more concerned with the effects this has on > Linux packagers. The 0.6 branch intends to be compatible with the current > seutptools package but to fix bugs and introduce features that are backwards > compatible and oft requested. This branch is being actively maintained by a > core group of five committers including the new distutils maintainer. By > contrast, setuptools is maintained by a single maintainer who often has > little time to work on it. > > When installed, the 0.6 branch takes over the setuptools and pkg_resources > python modules. The reasoning is that distribute-0.6 provides the same API > as setuptools and is meant to replace it. If the module was installed > differently, consuming code (all the setup.py modules in any setuptools > using package as well as code that relies on setuptools features at runtime) > would all need to change their import statements to use the new names > explicitly. This choice is being made upstream by the distribute project. > > Upstream, the python community has viewed the fork favorably but since it's > not part of python proper, the only one with say in the matter is the > setuptools author. He has not been willing to abandon the setuptools module > but at the same time hasn't gained any more free time to work on setuptools. > > Several other Linux distributions (gentoo and arch) have started shipping > distribute-0.6 as the source of their setuptools package. I am thinking of > doing the same for rawhide and pushing the change to older Fedora releases > if bugs are reported that are fixed in distribute but not in seutptools as > having a responsive upstream that cares about distribution packaging issues > is a great plus for us. I raised this plan on fedora-python-devel and > received one positive comment and no negative feedback so I'm just > mentioning it here so a broader audience can ask any questions or raise any > issues before putting this into effect. > > -Toshio > I was unaware of all this. Is there a reason why the setuptools author will not grant commit rights to others? Going solely on your email it seems like a fork would be unnecessary if he was willing to share the workload... -- Mat Booth A: Because it destroys the order of the conversation. Q: Why shouldn't you do it? A: Posting your reply above the original message. Q: What is top-posting? -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Switching python-setuptools to distribute
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 12:52:30PM +0100, Mat Booth wrote: > > I was unaware of all this. Is there a reason why the setuptools author > will not grant commit rights to others? Going solely on your email it > seems like a fork would be unnecessary if he was willing to share the > workload... > He doesn't trust any of the people who want to work on it to touch his code. He has made two or three other people committers but they lack either time or interest in working on it. In my personal interactions with him, he's a control freak who wants to personally vette all the changes that go in. This fork has been years in the making but if you want to see that yourself, you'll need to read the python-dev archives for the past few months and distutils-sig archives for the past few years. -Toshio pgpEbsLjOGYjy.pgp Description: PGP signature -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Switching python-setuptools to distribute
2009/10/13, Mat Booth : > 2009/10/12 Toshio Kuratomi : >> I've been a comaintainer of the python-setuptools package for a long time >> and recently became the owner when icon relinquished it. It is currently >> a >> tumultuous time for distributing python modules with a new and active >> maintainer for distutils inside of the python stdlib and a fork of >> setuptools being worked on. >> >> That fork is named distribute and there are two branches of development on >> it. The 0.7 branch aims to implement API, metadata, and other features >> that >> will make packaging python modules for upstream building and distribution >> easier while being more concerned with the effects this has on >> Linux packagers. The 0.6 branch intends to be compatible with the current >> seutptools package but to fix bugs and introduce features that are >> backwards >> compatible and oft requested. This branch is being actively maintained by >> a >> core group of five committers including the new distutils maintainer. By >> contrast, setuptools is maintained by a single maintainer who often has >> little time to work on it. >> >> When installed, the 0.6 branch takes over the setuptools and pkg_resources >> python modules. The reasoning is that distribute-0.6 provides the same >> API >> as setuptools and is meant to replace it. If the module was installed >> differently, consuming code (all the setup.py modules in any setuptools >> using package as well as code that relies on setuptools features at >> runtime) >> would all need to change their import statements to use the new names >> explicitly. This choice is being made upstream by the distribute project. >> >> Upstream, the python community has viewed the fork favorably but since >> it's >> not part of python proper, the only one with say in the matter is the >> setuptools author. He has not been willing to abandon the setuptools >> module >> but at the same time hasn't gained any more free time to work on >> setuptools. >> >> Several other Linux distributions (gentoo and arch) have started shipping >> distribute-0.6 as the source of their setuptools package. I am thinking >> of >> doing the same for rawhide and pushing the change to older Fedora releases >> if bugs are reported that are fixed in distribute but not in seutptools as >> having a responsive upstream that cares about distribution packaging >> issues >> is a great plus for us. I raised this plan on fedora-python-devel and >> received one positive comment and no negative feedback so I'm just >> mentioning it here so a broader audience can ask any questions or raise >> any >> issues before putting this into effect. >> >> -Toshio >> > > I was unaware of all this. Is there a reason why the setuptools author > will not grant commit rights to others? Going solely on your email it > seems like a fork would be unnecessary if he was willing to share the > workload... > > > -- > Mat Booth > > A: Because it destroys the order of the conversation. > Q: Why shouldn't you do it? > A: Posting your reply above the original message. > Q: What is top-posting? > > -- > fedora-devel-list mailing list > fedora-devel-list@redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list > -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Switching python-setuptools to distribute
WHO IS CORSEPIU? 2009/10/13, GEORGIOS GIANNAKIS : > 2009/10/13, Mat Booth : >> 2009/10/12 Toshio Kuratomi : >>> I've been a comaintainer of the python-setuptools package for a long >>> time >>> and recently became the owner when icon relinquished it. It is >>> currently >>> a >>> tumultuous time for distributing python modules with a new and active >>> maintainer for distutils inside of the python stdlib and a fork of >>> setuptools being worked on. >>> >>> That fork is named distribute and there are two branches of development >>> on >>> it. The 0.7 branch aims to implement API, metadata, and other features >>> that >>> will make packaging python modules for upstream building and >>> distribution >>> easier while being more concerned with the effects this has on >>> Linux packagers. The 0.6 branch intends to be compatible with the >>> current >>> seutptools package but to fix bugs and introduce features that are >>> backwards >>> compatible and oft requested. This branch is being actively maintained >>> by >>> a >>> core group of five committers including the new distutils maintainer. >>> By >>> contrast, setuptools is maintained by a single maintainer who often has >>> little time to work on it. >>> >>> When installed, the 0.6 branch takes over the setuptools and >>> pkg_resources >>> python modules. The reasoning is that distribute-0.6 provides the same >>> API >>> as setuptools and is meant to replace it. If the module was installed >>> differently, consuming code (all the setup.py modules in any setuptools >>> using package as well as code that relies on setuptools features at >>> runtime) >>> would all need to change their import statements to use the new names >>> explicitly. This choice is being made upstream by the distribute >>> project. >>> >>> Upstream, the python community has viewed the fork favorably but since >>> it's >>> not part of python proper, the only one with say in the matter is the >>> setuptools author. He has not been willing to abandon the setuptools >>> module >>> but at the same time hasn't gained any more free time to work on >>> setuptools. >>> >>> Several other Linux distributions (gentoo and arch) have started >>> shipping >>> distribute-0.6 as the source of their setuptools package. I am thinking >>> of >>> doing the same for rawhide and pushing the change to older Fedora >>> releases >>> if bugs are reported that are fixed in distribute but not in seutptools >>> as >>> having a responsive upstream that cares about distribution packaging >>> issues >>> is a great plus for us. I raised this plan on fedora-python-devel and >>> received one positive comment and no negative feedback so I'm just >>> mentioning it here so a broader audience can ask any questions or raise >>> any >>> issues before putting this into effect. >>> >>> -Toshio >>> >> >> I was unaware of all this. Is there a reason why the setuptools author >> will not grant commit rights to others? Going solely on your email it >> seems like a fork would be unnecessary if he was willing to share the >> workload... >> >> >> -- >> Mat Booth >> >> A: Because it destroys the order of the conversation. >> Q: Why shouldn't you do it? >> A: Posting your reply above the original message. >> Q: What is top-posting? >> >> -- >> fedora-devel-list mailing list >> fedora-devel-list@redhat.com >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list >> > -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Switching python-setuptools to distribute
2009/10/13, GEORGIOS GIANNAKIS : > WHO IS CORSEPIU? > > 2009/10/13, GEORGIOS GIANNAKIS : >> 2009/10/13, Mat Booth : >>> 2009/10/12 Toshio Kuratomi : I've been a comaintainer of the python-setuptools package for a long time and recently became the owner when icon relinquished it. It is currently a tumultuous time for distributing python modules with a new and active maintainer for distutils inside of the python stdlib and a fork of setuptools being worked on. That fork is named distribute and there are two branches of development on it. The 0.7 branch aims to implement API, metadata, and other features that will make packaging python modules for upstream building and distribution easier while being more concerned with the effects this has on Linux packagers. The 0.6 branch intends to be compatible with the current seutptools package but to fix bugs and introduce features that are backwards compatible and oft requested. This branch is being actively maintained by a core group of five committers including the new distutils maintainer. By contrast, setuptools is maintained by a single maintainer who often has little time to work on it. When installed, the 0.6 branch takes over the setuptools and pkg_resources python modules. The reasoning is that distribute-0.6 provides the same API as setuptools and is meant to replace it. If the module was installed differently, consuming code (all the setup.py modules in any setuptools using package as well as code that relies on setuptools features at runtime) would all need to change their import statements to use the new names explicitly. This choice is being made upstream by the distribute project. Upstream, the python community has viewed the fork favorably but since it's not part of python proper, the only one with say in the matter is the setuptools author. He has not been willing to abandon the setuptools module but at the same time hasn't gained any more free time to work on setuptools. Several other Linux distributions (gentoo and arch) have started shipping distribute-0.6 as the source of their setuptools package. I am thinking of doing the same for rawhide and pushing the change to older Fedora releases if bugs are reported that are fixed in distribute but not in seutptools as having a responsive upstream that cares about distribution packaging issues is a great plus for us. I raised this plan on fedora-python-devel and received one positive comment and no negative feedback so I'm just mentioning it here so a broader audience can ask any questions or raise any issues before putting this into effect. -Toshio >>> >>> I was unaware of all this. Is there a reason why the setuptools author >>> will not grant commit rights to others? Going solely on your email it >>> seems like a fork would be unnecessary if he was willing to share the >>> workload... >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Mat Booth >>> >>> A: Because it destroys the order of the conversation. >>> Q: Why shouldn't you do it? >>> A: Posting your reply above the original message. >>> Q: What is top-posting? >>> >>> -- >>> fedora-devel-list mailing list >>> fedora-devel-list@redhat.com >>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list >>> >> > -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
