Greg Ward <gward@python.net> writes:
> On 11 February 2002, Michael Hudson said:
> > But I believe that 1.5.2 compatibility is still relavent for
> > distutils
>
> I'm still catching up on distutils-sig traffic from the past year, so I
> don't want to overcommit myself here... but I've been thinking that we
> (I) should do one last Distutils release that is 1.5.2 compatible, and
> then we can decide if future Distutils releases will stick to
> 2.0-compatibility, or are allowed to require the version of Python that
> they go with.
I;m not sure that idea will get widespread support.
> However, please *don't* everyone jump in and start a thread about this
> now. I'll take it up on distutils-sig when I've caught up.
But I'll wait until you get caught up.
> > I had a go at implementing a very KISS approach to distutils logging
> > this morning and found what I was doing conflicted horribly with
> > distutils' current practice, so I stopped.
>
> Probably because the Distutils current practice is an ill-thought-out
> mishmash. That'll have to be fixed first, I suspect. Sorry. ;-(
It was more to do with options processing (the fact that basically
speaking all options translate to attributes on some object) than
logging. I suspect I could have used Optik more easily...
I'm also not sure how politic it would be to take an axe to the
interfaces of the various *util modules.
Cheers,
M.
--
You sound surprised. We're talking about a government department
here - they have procedures, not intelligence.
-- Ben Hutchings, cam.misc
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4