On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 17:48, sstein...@gmail.com <sstein...@gmail.com> wrote: > I guess what I mean is that I'd like to make sure that while moving to pip, > that easy_install, as a command name, not as an implementation, gets brought > along in the same way that Distribute has brought along setuptools > compatibility. IOW in such a way that the improvements in the new code are > available without breaking any existing configurations/scripts/workflows etc.
easy_install is a command, basically a wrapper around setuptools install functionality. I doubt many scripts would use it in any more complex way than calling it, in which case moving to pip is a matter of replacing the command. > I imagine it would be useful to have a facade because easy_install is > familiar and ubiquitous and shouldn't be left rotting in place as pip takes > over the world and becomes the SDPTJLCOB any more than Distribute left the > rest of setuptools exposed to cause problems once Distribute was installed. I don't even understand that sentence, let alone what you are trying to say. Distribute is a setuptools fork. Pip is not an easy_install fork. I don't really see the parallell. -- Lennart Regebro: http://regebro.wordpress.com/ Python 3 Porting: http://python-incompatibility.googlecode.com/ +33 661 58 14 64 _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
