On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Chris Withers <ch...@simplistix.co.uk> wrote: > Tarek Ziadé wrote: >> >> Agreed. And every piece of puzzle is starting to emerge. >> >> As Marc-André said, PEP 390 is less important and could be done in >> distutils even without PEP, >> as long as we add the markers in PEP 345, (meaning we accept 386). > > What markers are you referring to? > > A quick scan of http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0345/ shows no sign of > any of the contentious bits of PEP390. What am I missing?
That's the part I have not added yet. Markers are the "sys_platform == 'win32" things discussed in PEP 390. See the other thread (RFC: PEP 345...) > (other than that 386 should be accepted and implemented asap...) Its implemented, we just need a consensus <flameware shield ;) > no consensus would mean that if a minority that have enough supporters objects the PEP, and provide an alernative, we would have another round. </flameware> _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
