RetroSearch Browse

Wed Jul 15 19:47:35 CEST 2009 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-July/090671.html

I've been trying to follow this discussion now for weeks. The signal to noise 
ratio is pretty low.

I'd love to have an stdlib solution for distribution packaging and installation. 
  But I think we might as well pack it up and go home if the folks whom are 
contributing to the discussion "recreationally" (whom are not themselves 
implementers and potential implementers or spec writers or potential spec 
writers of packaging systems) continue to chime in on *every single issue*, 
contributing only stop energy.  It's just completely pointless.

- C

On 7/15/09 12:34 PM, P.J. Eby wrote:
> At 04:59 PM 7/15/2009 +0100, Paul Moore wrote:
>> - Virtualenv isn't a workaround (I don't know virtualenv, I'll take
>> your word for it)
>
> It's not one for system package maintainers because it would effectively
> be managing multiple instances of 'python'. Really not a suitable solution.
>
>
>> - I do not believe that it's clear that sanctioning the setuptools
>> workaround as the "right" approach by building it into the Python
>> core/stdlib is the right thing to do.
>
> I still don't understand how we're doing that.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> Unsubscribe:
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/lists%40plope.com
>

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-July/090671.html below:

[Python-Dev] [Distutils] PEP 376 - from PyPM's point of view