RetroSearch Browse

Mon Jul 6 17:53:01 CEST 2009 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-July/090455.html

2009/7/6 Tarek Ziadé <ziade.tarek at gmail.com>:
> why can't we just go ahead and continue the work as we started with PEP 376,
> introducing your work on PEP 302-like behavior.
>
> Then if we get a consensus on this PEP and introduce it in 2.7/3.2,
> setuptools will have to follow this consensus.

Essentially, because when I ask questions, responses along the lines
of "you have to do it like X because setuptools does that" come back,
and (not being a setuptools user) I can't tell whether there's a valid
reason in there.

I'm uncomfortable assuming that setuptools experience is irrelevant,
but I can't distinguish between valid arguments and "setuptools can't
change" arguments.

I need to write another email with a list of outstanding open issues.
If we can thrash them out *without* getting bogged down in setuptools
compatibility questions, then I think we can move forward again. I'll
do that this evening.

Paul.

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-July/090455.html below:

[Python-Dev] PEP 376 and PEP 302