Kevin Teague wrote: > Python Eggs == Ruby Gems, and they both work more or less equally well > as a packaging format.
I don't agree. Sure, they are the same idea, but the implementation is vastly different, and that's what matters IMHO, or at least is one big problem. If you look at the ruby gem page, you have one link for a specification; I have not done it, and maybe I would realize I were wrong by trying it, but I got the impression I could generate gems myself from the specification. Can I do that with eggs ? Also, gems and rake/rant are different projects (maybe by different people ?). In practice, it is nice to have everything integrated (and ruby gems certainly feel as integrated as python eggs), but having different packages for different tasks force to have proper behavior, not a behavior which works in some cases, and broke in others. And rant is a proper build system, whereas distutils isn't. There is also the problem that by making some things easy but effectively "magic", when it breaks, you don't know how to fix. Those two problems (everything intermixed and magic) are linked. If several tasks were separated, there would have been a clear specification/API, and less magic. Of course, basing setuptools on the top of distutils make this task nearly impossible (but I understand it was the best if not only choice given Philip requirements when he started setuptools). You have people who ignore the problem eggs are trying to solve (the "install debian and solve real problems" crowd), but I don't think the majority of people who object to eggs in principle. They object to implementation problems. cheers, David _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
