another example is that without a standard there is no viable way to replace a grown messy legacy tool with a much less messy tool over time creating a new trimmed down standard and supporting it from the legacy tool as well as from the new tool works out much better than trying to trim down the legacy tool over time
On 10/21/2015 06:34 PM, Thomas Güttler wrote: > Am 21.10.2015 um 17:29 schrieb Daniel Holth: >> The strategy that we are successfully pursuing is to standardize around file >> formats that the build tools generate and the installers and runtime can >> consume.... > I ask myself: Why a standard? I see that a standard is very important if > there will be > several implementations (for example TCP/IP, protocols like HTTP, SMTP, IMAP, > ...) > > But here a single implementation for creating and installing packages would > be enough. > > Is a standard really needed? > > Regards, > Thomas Güttler > > > > _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
