Might as well answer the survey myself:
> A few questions (please add more) so far are:
> (1) Should setuptools be standard?
Not at this stage. What pythonistas need is a cross-platform package
manager that is included in the stdlib. Setuptools is simply not
mature enough nor pythonic enough to
Carl Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>1. setuptools will download and install dependencies on the user's
>behalf, without asking, by default.
It will *attempt* to download etc. etc. on the assumption that you
have convenient, fast network connection. If you don't
My experience is getting on
On Jun 1, 2:47 am, Alia Khouri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can we open up the discussion here about how to improve setuptools
> which has become the de facto standard for distributing / installing
> python software. I've been playing around with ruby's gems which seems
> to be more more mature and
On 1 Jun, 10:47, Alia Khouri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can we open up the discussion here about how to improve setuptools
> which has become the de facto standard for distributing / installing
> python software. I've been playing around with ruby's gems which seems
> to be more more mature and
On Jun 1, 4:47 am, Alia Khouri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can we open up the discussion here about how to improve setuptools
> which has become the de facto standard for distributing / installing
> python software. I've been playing around with ruby's gems which seems
> to be more more mature and
Can we open up the discussion here about how to improve setuptools
which has become the de facto standard for distributing / installing
python software. I've been playing around with ruby's gems which seems
to be more more mature and usable.
>From my perspective, the relative immaturity of setupt
