2009/5/9 Chris Withers <ch...@simplistix.co.uk>: > +1. > > <flame>Anyone who's arguing against this is either not deploying stuff in a > repeatable fashion, and so isn't serious in my books, or is so serious that > they're cutting vm images to roll out and so dump everything for the app in > site packages</flame>
Hmm. I'll accept the flame to the extent that I don't deploy stuff to a wide enough audience to be qualified to comment on that side of things. But: 1. Can you clarify what "this" is? Part of the issue I see is that there's never a clear enough statement of a proposal for a non-expert in the field to follow. 2. Distutils is for distributing python modules/packages, so *application* deployment is out of scope. Script support is for small-scale stuff (in my view). The fact that it gets used for more doesn't mean it's appropriate... 3. Accepting that I don't know what you mean by "this", can I point out that as a user, I personally have problems with a significant proportion of scripts distributed with packages - so are you saying that those packages "aren't serious", or that there is no way of doing what they (and I) want at present? Concrete examples of specific packages would probably help. Right this moment, I can't personally provide any because I recently had to rebuild my PC and haven't yet reinstalled the vast number of tried-once-but-never-used-again packages I used to have available... I'll see if I can find some in due course. (Basically, the types of things I see are scripts distributed on Windows with no filetype extension, .bat wrappers for command line scripts which don't work right when called from another bat file, setuptools-built exe wrappers which result in version-specific binaries for pure-python code, to give some examples). Paul. _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
