RetroSearch Browse

Tue Jul 7 13:58:51 CEST 2009 · http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-July/090499.html

Paul Moore <p.f.moore at gmail.com> writes:

> I agree the current situation is a mess. I believe that everything you
> mention is related to setuptools - so essentially, we have the
> situation:
> 
> - the existing setuptools format is a mess (at least in the opinion of
> MAL and me :-))

No argument from me on this point.

> - PEP 376 is an opportunity to consider cleanup
> - there are some strong supporters of keeping things
> setuptools-compatible

Your implication seems to be that these two are incompatible. It should
be noted that it's possible to clean up, by having a separate (e.g.
‘.pydist’) directory as the new standard, with “cleaned up” standard
content, and continue backward compatibility in the actual tools while
deprecating the old ‘.egg-info’ format for some time until finally
removing that support.

> Much as I'd like to, I can't really argue the case for breaking
> setuptools compatibility without practical reasons.

Agreed. I think we should be making it clear that ‘.egg-info’ is not
going to evolve any further, and that it will eventually go away; but
not remove support for it until there's a clearly established
replacement.

-- 
 \         “I got up the other day, and everything in my apartment has |
  `\   been stolen and replaced with an exact replica.” —Steven Wright |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-July/090499.html below:

[Python-Dev] PEP 376 and PEP 302