On Fri, Oct 20, 2017, at 12:50 PM, Donald Stufft wrote: > * Since it is a packaging standard, then it is expected that all > packaging tools will be updated to work with it.
Where packaging tools need to know about it, they already have to. Where they don't, writing a standard doesn't imply that every tool has to implement it. Documenting it doesn't change either case, it just makes life easier for tools that do need to use it. > * We’re explicitly saying that this is the one true way of solving this > problem in the Python ecosystem. I don't buy that at all. We're saying that it exists, and this is what it is. > * We stifle innovation (hell just including it in setutools at all does > this, but we can’t unopen that can of worms). I don't think that's true to any significant extent. Having a standard does not stop people coming up with something better. > * We make it actively harder to improve the feature (since once it’s part > of the purview of packaging standards, all of distutils-sig gets to weigh > in on improvements). It hasn't changed in years, as far as I know, and it's so widely used that any change is likely to break a load of stuff anyway. As we've already discussed for caching, we can improve by building *on top* of it relatively easily. And ultimately I think that bringing it out into daylight leads to a healthier future than leaving it under the stone marked 'setuptools''. _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig