RetroSearch Browse

Wed Jun 20 16:46:51 CEST 2012 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-June/120497.html

Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net> wrote:
> > Agreed, especially if the "proven in the wild" criterion is required
> > (people won't rush to another third-party distutils replacement, IMHO).
> 
> The existence of setuptools means that "proven in the wild" is never
> going to fly - a whole lot of people use setuptools and easy_install
> happily, because they just don't care about the downsides it has in
> terms of loss of control of a system configuration.

Maybe not "happily" :-).  Speaking for myself, I'd love to find an
alternative, but setuptools seems to be the only system that knows how
to build shared libraries across all my platforms.  I've got little
interest in a packaging module that doesn't include the compiler magic
to do that.

Bill

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-June/120497.html below:

[Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3