On 13/11/11 11:31, Zooko O'Whielacronx wrote: > On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 11:43 AM, David-Sarah Hopwood > <david-sa...@jacaranda.org> wrote: >> >>>> Why doesn't the setup code force the umask? >>>> It seems like this should not depend on the environment. >> >> Yes, this is a bug in setuptools. > > No, if it is a bug, it is a bug in distutils.
I don't make a strong distinction between setuptools and distutils, because setuptools heavily patches distutils without attempting to maintain any modular separation between them. It's just easier to say "setuptools" than "setuptools plus distutils as patched by setuptools". >> We need to stop using setuptools. > > Switching to another tool would be trading out these bugs for > different bugs. Yes, and I'd be really pleased about that, because at least they would be bugs I could understand. At this point I have a profound dislike of setuptools, and can't imagine that it will ever be fixed in a way that would make me happy with Tahoe-LAFS using it. -- David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥ http://davidsarah.livejournal.com
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ tahoe-dev mailing list tahoe-dev@tahoe-lafs.org http://tahoe-lafs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tahoe-dev
