On 17/03/2008, Phillip J. Eby <pje at telecommunity.com> wrote: > >The PEP suggests that other package managers also benefit. How do they > >benefit if the bootstrap script installs setuptools? > > Because those other package managers depend, in fact, on setuptools, > or at least pkg_resources... which was why the original proposal was > to just include pkg_resources in the first place. :) I'm puzzled. We seem to be talking about adding a module to the stdlib whose basic function is to download and install setuptools? How is this better than just including setuptools in the stdlib? Personally, I have no problem per se with including setuptools in the stdlib. Maybe that means I miss the subtle benefit of this approach... I'm -1 on having a module which just installs setuptools. I'm +0 on including pkg_resources (as described in PEP 365) in the stdlib. I'm +lots on someone giving a clear explanation of the meaning and interrelationship of the various terms involved in this discussion (setuptools, easy_install, pkg_resources, eggs, "package managers" as distinct from setuptools, etc etc) so that the discussion gets some much-needed clarity :-( I'm -1 on adding anything until PEP 365 is updated to match what is being proposed, and then that amended PEP is submitted for discussion. Paul.
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