On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 18:10:56 +0000, Chris Withers <ch...@simplistix.co.uk> wrote: > That may be, but discussions of one seem to invariably involve > discussion of the other. It seems not many people know about catalog-sig > anyway so the discussions end up on distutils-sig or, worse yet, > python-dev...
Well, anybody is welcome to start a discussion on some relevant topic. For example, I don't mind seeing discussion on PEP-345. It was created in 2005 so that means it's been open for four years. Also, I've noticed that there are two distinct political camps with python packaging. One camp is the traditional pythoners who were there from day one, know all the tools, know the tools that they like, and know how to install them, manually if necessary. Generally speaking they are python centric and not interested in any other languages or even try them. That's ok. Let's call them specialists. The other camp are the ones who have come from the outside python and are used to perhaps alternate packaging solutions. Maybe this camp go from place to place and are exposed to different tools and have to make whatever they are given work. Lets call them corporate software contractors. Moving on... As some know, Guido posted a week or two back on getting python more functionally compatible with CPAN. Outsider's "know" that python lags perl (and other languages) in third-party package loading capability. It's not always possible to discuss those issues on distutils-ml because everything must be realistically implementable within the legacy code framework of distutils. A lot of PEP discussion should be high level and it should be driven from catalog-sig instead of distutils-sig imo. Especially PEP-345. Catalog-sig should be about the real world needs of packaging and distutils-sig should be about the implementation imho. within _______________________________________________ Catalog-SIG mailing list Catalog-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/catalog-sig
