Janzert wrote: > Since there seems to be a fair number of negative responses to > setuptools, I just wanted to add a bit of positive counterbalance. I'm > just a random python user that happens to track python-dev a bit, so > take all this with the realization that I probably shouldn't have much > input into anything. ;) > > I've been using python for somewhere around 10 years to write various > random small scripts, gui applications and recently web applications. > For me setuptools is the best thing to happen to python since I've been > using it. I develop and deploy on a seemingly constantly changing mix > of > various flavors of windows and linux. Unlike for others, I love that > once I get setuptools installed I can just use the same commands to get > the things I need. I guess the contrast for me is that python is the > common base that I tend to work from not the underlying OS. > > So I don't know if I'm part of a large number of quiet users or just > happen to be an odd case that works really well with setuptools. I was > disappointed when setuptools didn't make it into 2.5 and I really hope > it or something very much like it can make it into a release in the > near future. Because while setuptools certainly isn't perfect, for me > at least, it is much, much better than nothing at all. My interpretation of this is that setuptools suffers from the same malaise all flexible apps do (but especially CLI apps it seems): frequent users love the power and high volume of options, infrequent users despise it. If you're installing apps all day, you probably use it a lot more often than library devs like me who use it once every other month (if we're forced to). Robert Brewer fumanchu at aminus.org
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