>> I of course agree with Jorge's argument on the advantages of a non- >> monolithic framework And yes of course that having different >> components to install will naturally give rise to numerous >> installation problems. But, it remains that that there were several >> strange setuptools-related problems when I first started to get pylons >> projects going, problems that I was not interested about in the very >> least. > > I hate to pass the buck, but this is Python's fault for not having > reliable package management built in. There's nothing Pylons can do > about it except switch to another programming language.
Pylons has a nice new website, and with it is a direct link to a continuous integration status page, via Buildbot. Would it perhaps be useful to include the installation of Pylons into the continuous integration system? It does seem like various people have had issues getting Pylons to build successfully at one point or another, and this is equally important as whether the code works, in my opinion. There is a simple way to fix this problem. You work around the Python packaging system, or at least only have core developers use it to assemble a build that was generated from a continuous integration system. Then tell easy_install, or plain distutils, to just install the tar file. This is what Django does, and it isn't exactly elegant, but then again, I have never had a problem installing Django, and I have had a problem installing Pylons. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pylons-discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pylons-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
