On 13/11/11 17:01, Zooko O'Whielacronx wrote: > On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 5:16 PM, David-Sarah Hopwood > <david-sa...@jacaranda.org> wrote: >>> 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". > > Well, the reason to make the distinction is that if we stopped using > setuptools, as per Brian's "unsuck" branch, or if we switched to a > different tool, such as distribute, pip, distutils2, paver, or > whatever (note: some of those tools may be different types of thing), > then that'd probably not change this particular behavior.
It probably would if the replacement did not use the implementation of 'setup.py sdist' that is in distutils. I would be in favour of using a replacement that is not based on distutils at all. (Note that this doesn't preclude providing reasonably close compatibility with the 'setup.py' command interface.) -- 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
