Greg Ewing wrote: > > Also, it seems to me that in this case, the basic > architecture of distutils is already so full of > mistakes that there just isn't an incremental way > of getting to a better place, especially given the > requirement of not breaking any existing setup.py > scripts together with the fact that the API of distutils > effectively consists of its *entire implementation*.
Exactly. The fact that we in numpy consider distutils backward compatibility not worth the cost, even though we are most likely the most tied up with distutils, is quite telling about the state of affairs IMHO. David _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
