RetroSearch Browse

Mon Mar 17 16:51:28 CET 2008 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-March/077680.html

>> I thought the original proposal was to install a *binary* easy_install
>> that takes that function.
> 
> What do you mean by "binary"?  I thought we were talking about a 
> module.  Do you mean a script to be installed alongside Python itself in 
> e.g. /usr/bin?

Exactly so.

> In the original discussion, it was a module to be added alongside 
> pkg_resources, which would use pkg_resources to find and/or install 
> setuptools.  I also personally like the use of -m instead of a script 
> because it makes it quite clear that this is a Python-specific 
> installation tool, and *which* version of Python, as well, without 
> having to have easy_install-2.5, easy_install-2.6, etc.

If that becomes the official interface to easy_install, that's fine
with me. I'm worried about web instructions that tell people that
there is an "easy_install" utility, so that people never find out
the module actually exists.

Regards,
Martin

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-March/077680.html below:

[Python-Dev] PEP 365 (Adding the pkg_resources module)