On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 6:15 PM, Jeff Rush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Frankly I'd like to see setuptools exploded, with those parts of general use
> folded back into the standard library, the creation of a set of
> non-implementation-specific documents of the distribution formats and
> behavi
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
At 03:57 AM 3/19/2008 -0500, Jeff Rush wrote:
I'd be willing to help out, and keep a carefully balanced hand in
what is accepted.
I'm not sure exactly how to go about such a handoff though. My guess
is that we need a bug/patch tracker, and a few people to rev
We should probably move this off of Python-Dev, as we're getting into
deep details now...
At 07:27 PM 3/18/2008 -0500, Dave Peterson wrote:
>If you really wanted to do a full-tree intersection, it seems to me
>that the problem is detecting all the dependencies without having to
>spend significa
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
At 05:10 PM 3/17/2008 -0500, Jeff Rush wrote:
1. Many felt the existing dependency resolver was not correct. They wanted a
full tree traversal resulting in an intersection of all restrictions,
instead of a first-acceptable-solution approach taking now, which ca
I've added your comments to a wiki page
(http://wiki.python.org/moin/PackagingBOF) I was working on to summarize
some of what went on during these BoF meeting, at least from the
Enthought point-of-view. Unfortunately, I wasn't at the first night's
event and don't yet have Travis Oliphant's not
Marius Gedminas wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 08:37:30PM -0400, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
>> At 05:10 PM 3/17/2008 -0500, Jeff Rush wrote:
>>> People also want a greater variety of file_finders to be included with
>>> setuptools. Instead of just CVS and SVN, they want it to comprehend
>>>
