On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 12:32 PM, David Cournapeau <courn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Ronny Pfannschmidt < > opensou...@ronnypfannschmidt.de> wrote: > >> why does that have to be in setuptools ?! >> >> if we want a new light system to begin with, shouldn't it be far more >> sustainable to use just implementations of the new standards rather than >> leaving all of setuptools >> >> there is no viable way in setuptools to get rid of the legacy ina sane >> and fast manner, it would drag out over years >> > > agreed. I have never met a person who had to deal substantially with > distutils code and enjoyed the experience. > > The whole architecture is fundamentally flawed. I wrote this a long time > ago, but I still stand by most arguments: > https://cournape.wordpress.com/2009/04/01/python-packaging-a-few-observations-cabal-for-a-solution/ > I've (luckily?) never had to deal with distutils code... I am definitely digging the post. First time I've read it, but I am definitely more pro-standard-interface-and-let-tools-do-with-it-what-they-will than I was a few minutes ago. Would pip's freeze format work a la the cabal file, or is it missing too much information? -Wayne
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
