I don't want to be inflammatory, but I am a user of setuptools and
distribute and I think I have a valid concern that this list should
note.
The fact that Debian and Ubuntu made the "python-setuptools" .deb
install Distribute instead of setuptools, and that Distribute has some
bugs that setuptools
At 03:23 PM 7/3/2010 -0400, Tres Seaver wrote:
In that spirit, Tarek, you need to stop saying "setuptools is
unmaintained for the last 2 years": PJE objects to it as unfactual, as
do I. THe release last October makes that statement untrue on its face.
Additionally, I would like to have some r
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tarek Ziadé wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 8:03 PM, P.J. Eby wrote:
>> At 07:29 PM 7/3/2010 +0900, David Cournapeau wrote:
>>> Besides the numerous technical issues, this is just basic decency. If
>>> I were PJE, I would be very mad.
>> I'm not mad
On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 3:03 AM, P.J. Eby wrote:
>
> My understanding (and I would guess, that of the OS distributors' as well)
> was *also* based on the premise that distribute was going to track with
> setuptools' feature additions and bug fixes, which it clearly has not. The
> 0.6c11 release (
On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 3:30 AM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 8:03 PM, P.J. Eby wrote:
>> At 07:29 PM 7/3/2010 +0900, David Cournapeau wrote:
>>>
>>> Besides the numerous technical issues, this is just basic decency. If
>>> I were PJE, I would be very mad.
>>
>> I'm not mad at it
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 8:03 PM, P.J. Eby wrote:
> At 07:29 PM 7/3/2010 +0900, David Cournapeau wrote:
>>
>> Besides the numerous technical issues, this is just basic decency. If
>> I were PJE, I would be very mad.
>
> I'm not mad at it being provided with a compatible API. However, I *am*
> ver
On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 3:03 AM, P.J. Eby wrote:
> At 07:29 PM 7/3/2010 +0900, David Cournapeau wrote:
>>
>> Besides the numerous technical issues, this is just basic decency. If
>> I were PJE, I would be very mad.
>
> I'm not mad at it being provided with a compatible API.
This is obviously fin
At 07:29 PM 7/3/2010 +0900, David Cournapeau wrote:
Besides the numerous technical issues, this is just basic decency. If
I were PJE, I would be very mad.
I'm not mad at it being provided with a compatible API. However, I
*am* very unhappy with the fact that the version of distribute that's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Greg Ewing wrote:
> Éric Araujo wrote:
>
>> Distribute is a fork of Setupools, so it wants to be a drop-in
>> replacement, i.e. to be used instead of setuptools with very few code
>> changes.
>
> But is there a technical reason why it *has* to be a
>
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 5:23 PM, David Cournapeau wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Éric Araujo wrote:
>> [David Cournapeau]
>>> [Georg Brandl]>
I know the reasons for that decision, and I probably would have done the
same
>>> Shall I understand that the hijacking of setuptools b
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Éric Araujo wrote:
> [David Cournapeau]
>> [Georg Brandl]>
>>> I know the reasons for that decision, and I probably would have done the
>>> same
>> Shall I understand that the hijacking of setuptools by distribute
>> (instead of merely forking it under a new name,
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 12:29 PM, David Cournapeau wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
>
>>
>> This technical reason was already explained in this mailing list back
>> then, many times.
>
> Maybe a link would be useful, so that it could referenced somewhere on
> distribute
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
>
> This technical reason was already explained in this mailing list back
> then, many times.
Maybe a link would be useful, so that it could referenced somewhere on
distribute main page ?
David
___
Di
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 9:32 AM, Greg Ewing wrote:
> Éric Araujo wrote:
>
>> Distribute is a fork of Setupools, so it wants to be a drop-in
>> replacement, i.e. to be used instead of setuptools with very few code
>> changes.
>
> But is there a technical reason why it *has* to be a
> drop-in replace
Éric Araujo wrote:
Distribute is a fork of Setupools, so it wants to be a drop-in
replacement, i.e. to be used instead of setuptools with very few code
changes.
But is there a technical reason why it *has* to be a
drop-in replacement, as opposed to a different package
with a different name?
-
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Éric Araujo wrote:
>>> As already stated elsewhere more than once, the fact that distribute
>>> provides the setuptools Python package is a technical requirement.
>> Ah, sorry about that, I missed it. What is that technical requirement ?
>
> Distribute is a fork of
>> As already stated elsewhere more than once, the fact that distribute
>> provides the setuptools Python package is a technical requirement.
> Ah, sorry about that, I missed it. What is that technical requirement ?
Distribute is a fork of Setupools, so it wants to be a drop-in
replacement, i.e. t
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Éric Araujo wrote:
>
> FTR, when some extreme distribute fans proposed that the PyPI setuptools
> entry had to be given to distribute, people (including Guido if my
> memory’s not failing) sternly replied that this was rude and unwelcome.
>
> As already stated else
[David Cournapeau]
> [Georg Brandl]>
>> I know the reasons for that decision, and I probably would have done the same
> Shall I understand that the hijacking of setuptools by distribute
> (instead of merely forking it under a new name, which I don't care
> about) is sanctioned by python-dev ?
Set
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 12:44 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:
> I know the reasons for that decision, and I probably would have done the same
Shall I understand that the hijacking of setuptools by distribute
(instead of merely forking it under a new name, which I don't care
about) is sanctioned by python
Tarek Ziadé wrote:
4. Distribute forks Setuptools for various reasons. If you disagree
with this choice, there's no need to send a mail here
David isn't disagreeing with that choice, as far as I can
see. The *only* thing he's saying is that the fork should
have a different name, because it's a
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
>
> Overall, I am curious to know what are your issues, if it not about
> the building process and the definition of metadata.
Without going into the technical details, it really boils down to
separate the concerns of the different parts of a pa
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 2:13 AM, David Cournapeau wrote:
[..]
>> This is precisely where I don't understand.
>
> Here is my understanding of what happened: as we (we being at least
> a couple of major maintainers in the numpy community) understood it 6
> months ago in the "we want CPAN" thread st
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 12:54 AM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 5:05 PM, David Cournapeau wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 11:29 PM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:18 PM, David Cournapeau wrote:
And how does this answer the question "what are the disagreements
At 04:13 PM 7/2/2010 +0200, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:00 PM, P.J. Eby wrote:
[..]
> Isn't it interesting how these rules prohibit open disagreement
or criticism
> (or even discussion!) of distribute and related matters, but *not*
> setuptools?
There's a huge gap between crit
Am 02.07.2010 18:01, schrieb Tarek Ziadé:
> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Georg Brandl wrote:
>> Am 02.07.2010 16:13, schrieb Tarek Ziadé:
>>> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:00 PM, P.J. Eby wrote:
>>> [..]
Isn't it interesting how these rules prohibit open disagreement or
criticism
(o
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Georg Brandl wrote:
> Am 02.07.2010 16:13, schrieb Tarek Ziadé:
>> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:00 PM, P.J. Eby wrote:
>> [..]
>>> Isn't it interesting how these rules prohibit open disagreement or criticism
>>> (or even discussion!) of distribute and related matters,
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 5:05 PM, David Cournapeau wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 11:29 PM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:18 PM, David Cournapeau wrote:
>>> And how does this answer the question "what are the disagreements" ?
>>> Short of saying what those are, I fail to see how
Am 02.07.2010 16:13, schrieb Tarek Ziadé:
> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:00 PM, P.J. Eby wrote:
> [..]
>> Isn't it interesting how these rules prohibit open disagreement or criticism
>> (or even discussion!) of distribute and related matters, but *not*
>> setuptools?
>
> There's a huge gap between cr
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 11:29 PM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:18 PM, David Cournapeau wrote:
>> And how does this answer the question "what are the disagreements" ?
>> Short of saying what those are, I fail to see how to give a good
>> answer,
>
> I am not sure to understand your
*puts linguist apprentice hat on*
David’s message was saying it was uncontroversial that there was a
controversy. So his judgment *was* stated as his own, but there was a
parsing ambiguity (is the part after “because” a fact or still the
opinion?) that tripped Tarek.
*puts hat off*
Regards
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:18 PM, David Cournapeau wrote:
> And how does this answer the question "what are the disagreements" ?
> Short of saying what those are, I fail to see how to give a good
> answer,
I am not sure to understand your point here. You stated two years ago, IIRC,
that distutils c
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:05 PM, David Cournapeau wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 11:00 PM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 3:42 PM, David Cournapeau wrote:
>> [..]
>
> I think the following in uncontroversial:
>
> distutils and setuptools are useful packaging solutio
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 11:16 PM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:05 PM, David Cournapeau wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 11:00 PM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 3:42 PM, David Cournapeau wrote:
>>> [..]
>>
>> I think the following in uncontroversial:
>
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:00 PM, P.J. Eby wrote:
[..]
> Isn't it interesting how these rules prohibit open disagreement or criticism
> (or even discussion!) of distribute and related matters, but *not*
> setuptools?
There's a huge gap between criticism + discussion, and the habitual flame
of distr
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 11:00 PM, P.J. Eby wrote:
>
> Isn't it interesting how these rules prohibit open disagreement or criticism
> (or even discussion!) of distribute and related matters, but *not*
> setuptools?
You noticed that too :)
David
___
Dist
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 11:00 PM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 3:42 PM, David Cournapeau wrote:
> [..]
I think the following in uncontroversial:
distutils and setuptools are useful packaging solutions which have
significant shortcoming, both design and imple
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 3:42 PM, David Cournapeau wrote:
[..]
>>>
>>> I think the following in uncontroversial:
>>>
>>> distutils and setuptools are useful packaging solutions which have
>>> significant shortcoming, both design and implementation-wise. Some
>>> people believe the distutils/setuptoo
At 12:08 PM 7/2/2010 +0200, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
Hello,
From time to time this mailing list is getting very unpleasant to work
in because some old disagreements,
and because some people are starting to get really nasty.
Here's a reminder of the current packaging situation, and a few rules
I sugge
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 10:31 PM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
> 2010/7/2 David Cournapeau :
>> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 9:09 PM, anatoly techtonik
>> wrote:
>>> Great post, Tarek. Following good old newsgroups/FIDOnet tradition it
>>> could be nice to see this transformed to Rules/FAQ document that will
>>>
2010/7/2 David Cournapeau :
> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 9:09 PM, anatoly techtonik wrote:
>> Great post, Tarek. Following good old newsgroups/FIDOnet tradition it
>> could be nice to see this transformed to Rules/FAQ document that will
>> be reposted automatically here by a robot about once a month.
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 9:09 PM, anatoly techtonik wrote:
> Great post, Tarek. Following good old newsgroups/FIDOnet tradition it
> could be nice to see this transformed to Rules/FAQ document that will
> be reposted automatically here by a robot about once a month.
>
> Without such documents your p
Great post, Tarek. Following good old newsgroups/FIDOnet tradition it
could be nice to see this transformed to Rules/FAQ document that will
be reposted automatically here by a robot about once a month.
Without such documents your proposal will be weakly supported, because
people will still have qu
Hello,
>From time to time this mailing list is getting very unpleasant to work
in because some old disagreements,
and because some people are starting to get really nasty.
Here's a reminder of the current packaging situation, and a few rules
I suggest, for the benefit of all
1. Python <= 2.7 con
44 matches
Mail list logo
