On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 11:16 PM, Tarek Ziadé <ziade.ta...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:05 PM, David Cournapeau <courn...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 11:00 PM, Tarek Ziadé <ziade.ta...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 3:42 PM, David Cournapeau <courn...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> [..] >>>>>> >>>>>> I think the following in uncontroversial: >>>>>> >>>>>> distutils and setuptools are useful packaging solutions which have >>>>>> significant shortcoming, both design and implementation-wise. Some >>>>>> people believe the distutils/setuptools/distribute issues can be >>>>>> solved by gradually deprecating code and adding new features, other >>>>>> people (me, but I am not alone) believe it would be better and faster >>>>>> to rewrite something from scratch because the distutils code is >>>>>> unmanageable and too complicated. >>>>> >>>>> You keep saying that for years, but in the meantime, the code was cleaned. >>>> >>>> I was just summarizing the situation to answer the original question >>>> from the OP. There was absolutely no judgement in the text I have >>>> written. >>> >>> You are judging that distutils code is unmanageable and too complicated, >>> and stating that this is an uncontroversial statement about the >>> current situation. >> >> This is not what I said. The judgement you mention was clearly stated >> as my own opinion, not as an uncontroversial point. > > maybe so, but we need an answer with facts that are not mixing opinions. e.g. > : > > "distutils2 is built with distutils code in a backward incompatible way"
And how does this answer the question "what are the disagreements" ? Short of saying what those are, I fail to see how to give a good answer, David _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
