On 17 Jul, 2013, at 17:55, Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 17 July 2013 16:46, Daniel Holth <dho...@gmail.com> wrote: > > * Are we saying "use setuptools" for everyone, or still only if you need it > > (asking since there is a stub about installing setuptools but the simple > > example doesn't have a direct need for it ATM, but could use find_packages() > > and such)? > > Setuptools is the preferred distutils-derived system. distutils should > no longer be considered morally superior. > > Personally, I still reserve judgement on setuptools. But that's mainly if you > actually use its features (you should carefully consider and understand the > implications if you use its script wrapper functionality, for example). > > I see no reason to knee-jerk use it if you don't use any of its > functionality, though. I may be in a minority on that, though :-)
I agree, and if metadata 2.0 and bdist_wheel support were added to distutils there'd be even less reason to use setuptools. I primarily use setuptools for its dependency system on installation, and that's nicely covered by using metadata 2.0, wheels and pip. > > The MEBS idea, or a simple setup.py emulator and a contract with the > installer on which commands it will actually call, will eventually let > you do a proper job of choosing build systems. > > By the way, what *does* MEBS mean? I've seen a few people use the term, but > never found an explanation... MEta Build System. Ronald > > Paul > _______________________________________________ > Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
