2010/7/13 "Martin v. Löwis" <mar...@v.loewis.de>: ... > >> Again, maybe it's flawed, and maybe we should remove it. But you cannot >> break this feature in Python 2.5, 26 etc.. because you find it flawed today. > > And it's not the reason that I broke it. Instead, the reason is that the > PSF required me to make the change. I didn't even remember that this > would break distutils. Now that I think about it, I think it's distutils > that needs to get fixed going forward. For backwards compatibility, I'm > willing to accept solutions as long as they don't allow users to bypass > that checkbox.
I understand why you did that change, and I understand the reasons. We also agree that Distutils needs to be fixed, and this is being worked out in Distutils2. But I strongly disagree that its better to break existing Python versions to comply with the PSF legal policy. I think this is a mistake, and I think it's acceptable to bypass that policy in distutils. That policy didn't exist back then, so it makes perfectly sense not to have it in Distutils. Furthermore, I would like if possible, that all changes in PyPI that may impact existing software, to be discussed, so we can be aware of such problems. (I am sending a mail to the PSF list, because I would like to defend my opinion for the legal aspect) Regards Tarek > > Regards, > Martin > -- Tarek Ziadé | http://ziade.org _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
