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
