RetroSearch Browse

Tue Jul 7 10:17:17 CEST 2009 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-July/090486.html

On 6 Jul, 2009, at 9:53, Tarek Ziadé wrote:

> 2009/7/6 Ronald Oussoren <ronaldoussoren at mac.com>:
>> I'm -1 on changing the name. For better or worse setuptools is the  
>> elephant
>> in the room w.r.t. package management and it would IMHO be better  
>> to stay
>> compatible (even if the stdlib only implements a subset of
>> setuptools/pkg_resources)
>>
>
> I'd rather see the elephant evolves.
>
> I don't see why we should bend a standard we want to introduce in  
> the stdlib,
> for a third-party package that is able to evolve to stick to a new  
> standard
> without any problem.

But why break existing code without having any other benifits?  If I  
read the discussion correctly the name would be changed without any  
changes to the contents of the metadata directory.  I would be more  
inclined to be in favour if the name change had a sound technical  
reason, such as a change of the contents of the directory which would  
make setuptools "egg-info" directories incompatible with the PEP376  
ones.

Ronald

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-July/090486.html below:

[Python-Dev] PEP 376 and PEP 302