RetroSearch Browse

Mon Mar 17 18:12:40 CET 2008 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-March/077688.html

On 17/03/2008, "Martin v. Löwis" <martin at v.loewis.de> wrote:
> > Personally, I have no problem per se with including setuptools in the
> > stdlib. Maybe that means I miss the subtle benefit of this approach...
>
> Did you review setuptools and can vouch that it is written cleanly,
> follows the coding style, has correct documentation, and so on?

No, I concede that when I say "I have no problem" with including
setuptools, I'm assuming that someone does that review - and there's
no reason to assume that anyone will do that (that's why I say "I have
no problem with" rather than "I want").

But I don't see any practical difference with including setuptools and
including a module that installs setuptools. Would you be happy with
the standard library including a module whose sole function was to
install a package that you weren't happy to include directly in the
standard library? I wouldn't, personally.

Paul

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-March/077688.html below:

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