On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 7:15 PM, Yaniv Aknin <yaniv at aknin.name> wrote: >> Well... a middle ground certainly could exist; perhaps in the form of an >> "Extended Standard Library" (community distribution), with simple >> installation and management tools. I'm not sure about the 'installation and management tools' part, but this is basically the idea I was trying to articulate: a middle ground between a 'fat' stdlib and a 'lean' one. >> It could be "blessed" by python-dev and maintain a high standard (only >> well established best-of-breed modules with a commitment of ongoing >> maintenance and more than one maintainer - something that the stdlib itself >> doesn't stick to). A common license could even be chosen, potentially >> allowing corporations to approve the extended package in a single pass. If we could do it that would be great, IMHO. > I read the 'sumo' thread before I read this (and replied in depth there), > but I think Michael and I mean similar things. > - Yaniv I don't think I'm understanding you correctly in that thread then, ISTM that you're advocating better packaging systems as an alternative to this. Would you mind clarifying? Geremy Condra
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