On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 8:25 PM, P.J. Eby <p...@telecommunity.com> wrote: > At 08:10 PM 11/30/2009 +0100, Tarek Ziadé wrote: >> >> 2009/11/30 P.J. Eby <p...@telecommunity.com>: >> > At 07:16 PM 11/30/2009 +0200, cool-RR wrote: >> >> >> >> Well, that sort of sucks. And this is my motivation for bundling the >> >> `pkg_resources` from Distribute. The last thing I want is having my >> >> software >> >> fail for my users because of setuptools while I have Distribute >> >> installed >> >> locally and can't see the bug on my computer. >> > >> > That's *really* unlikely. Setuptools' runtime functionality (i.e., >> > pkg_resources) has an extremely low bug count. There have actually been >> > more new pkg_resources bugs in Distribute's version of it (due to their >> > changes) than there are outstanding reported bugs in the original >> > pkg_resources. >> >> As I said earlier, we've had our share of bugs because we needed to >> make Distribute >> work in some particular environments, but that was bootstraping issues >> we've fixed. And >> if we have more we will fix them and release another version of >> Distribute. > > I wasn't criticizing Distribute - I was using Distribute to show just *how > low* pkg_resources' bug count is. > > (You know, this is now the third time in the last few days where you've > interpreted my *positive* comments about your work (e.g. PEP 386) to someone > else here as being some sort of criticism or argument with you.)
That was not a positive or negative comment about Distribute, but an incomplete statement. So I've corrected this statement. I agree that pkg_resources doesn't have a lot of bug. But I am also saying that Distribute's versions has less bugs. _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
