On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 17:46, Tarek Ziadé <ziade.ta...@gmail.com> wrote: > That was not exactly the conclusion of the summit. The idea is to make > distutils > a light, reference library, on wich third party libraries could implements > OS-dependant features and so on. So part of the plan is to remove bdist_*, > etc..
Well, I wasn't involved in the final discussions, as I had to leave, but one of the problems mentioned with this is that distribution becomes a problem, as 2.4 already has a module called distutils, so there is no obvious way to know that you need to install a new version of it. Unless there is some magic hack for this which is guaranteed to always work (ha!) I would side with those who said it would be better if this distutils version is called something else than distutils. But if you can promise me that a package that needs a newer version of distutils will at a minimum exit with an error saying exactly how to upgrade it I will remove this objection. :) Also, renaming means you don't have to be backwards compatible. In particular, we don't have to make sure setuptools still works. So I would say both you and Philip are correct. Distutils should be refactored. And replaced. :) -- Lennart Regebro: Pythonista, Barista, Notsotrista. http://regebro.wordpress.com/ +33 661 58 14 64 _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
