On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 5:19 PM, P.J. Eby <p...@telecommunity.com> wrote: > > I agree with you. But I 100% disagree with Tarek that the way to get there > is by refactoring the distutils. The distutils are stable (i.e., dead and > obsolete) and need to be *replaced*, not refactored.
No it's not. As discussed in the Summit., it'll get lighter, and we will build a backport for 2.5 and 2.6. (check the summit mails and Guido's answers) > > We need a new source manifest format and to deprecate the distutils as a > whole, not add an API to it and deprecate the parts that actually work. > > Nobody is arguing that distutils (or even setuptools) is the "right" way to > do things. But you can't get to the right thing by working forward from the > wrong... you've got to work backwards from the right. > > That means creating an installation manifest format that is 100% explicit, > and then having tools (including distutils/setuptools commands, and plugins > for other build systems) that can generate that manifest, as well as tools > to install files according to different platforms' predilections. We have been working on all those topics, sprinting at Pycon too, Please, help us at where we at: pick a workgroup here http://wiki.python.org/moin/Distutils (Pycon tasks) I will not let this happen : a big step backward because you didn't take part to the summit _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig