Tarek Ziadé wrote:
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 1:59 AM, Robert Kern <robert.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2009-11-11 18:48 PM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
I want to improve Distutils, but not for the price of a complete drop.
I don't think the edge cases we
are discussing worth it, and I still fail to see why we can't work
them out in the context of the existing
tool.
Mostly because I'm entirely uninterested in helping you make incremental
improvements that are going to break all the hard work we've already done
just to get things working as it is. I find that prospect incredibly
frustrating.
I can understand that. I am very frustrated too because in the last
threads, whenever we are speaking
about design, it seems that on your side and David side, dropping
Distutils seems like a post-condition
to everything. Even if I have made some proposals on some concrete
design changes.
In our considered opinion, piecemeal changes probably aren't going to solve the
significant problems that we face. At best, they simply aren't going to help; we
wouldn't be able to use the new features until we can drop support for Python
2.6. numpy and scipy still need to support Python 2.4. At worst, they would
introduce incompatibilities that we will have to work around somehow.
Who's "we" by the way ? The Scons project ? or the numpy.distutils project ?
numpy and scipy. While I hesitate to speak for an entire community, I must say
that David and my opinions on distutils are shared by a good portion of our
community that has to deal with building and packaging.
--
Robert Kern
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma
that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had
an underlying truth."
-- Umberto Eco
_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig