On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Tarek Ziadé <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Jim Fulton <[email protected]> wrote: > ... > Not sure to folllow. You want to port Setuptools into py3k... again ? > If so, this was done already in Distribute, and you can join the > project.
I don't really want to join a project. I already have a number of projects. > Or you want to copy our work from Distribute back into Setuptools ? > I would not mind of course, merging back the 2 projects would be > awesome -- but I have no hopes on this. It's possible that I could reuse that work. I'd rather port to 2&3 rather than 3. That is, I'd rather not rely on 2to3 at deployment time. I find installing distribute in Python 3 to be really annoying due to the spew from 2to3. I also find the 2to3 development model really unattractive. > Although, my suggestion would be to start digging into the > Distutils2/packaging project instead, since that will be in the > standard library, and backported in 2.x. When it's mature, I'll use it. > I believe it provides all the features buildout needs. And if not we > should add them Buildout needs entry points. Regardless, I fully expect to use Packaging when it's ready, but I'm stuck with setuptools/distribute now. I so wish that fork hadn't been done. > I think it boils down to: we should *all* work together in the > Distutils2/packaging project for all the basic packaging features we > need in third-party tools. I have lots of interesting projects I am working on and want to work on. I have no interest in making packaging a career. I'll use Packaging when it's ready. In the mean time, lots of people need buildout to work with Python 3 today. Jim -- Jim Fulton http://www.linkedin.com/in/jimfulton _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
