Am 21.10.2015 um 17:05 schrieb Nick Coghlan: > On 21 October 2015 at 14:55, David Cournapeau <courn...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Thomas Güttler >> <guettl...@thomas-guettler.de> wrote: >>> ok, at the moment setuptools uses distutils. >>> >>> Why not melt them together into **one** underwear-pants-module? >> >> >> What do you hope getting from that ? distutils is in the stdlib, so cannot >> change easily, and even if putting setuptools in the stdlib were possible, >> you would now need to handle different versions of setuptools for different >> versions of python. > > It's more useful to go the other direction and vendor a modern version > of distutils inside setuptools: > https://bitbucket.org/pypa/setuptools/issues/417/adopt-distutils > > distutils can then optionally be replaced wholesale at runtime, rather > than having the internals be monkeypatched. > >> On top of this, the goal of lots of efforts around packaging is to allow >> people to move away from distutils/setuptools, as the underlying design is >> fundamentally difficult to extend. > > We still need a migration path to modern metadata standards for > everyone using distutils and setuptools - that's the side of things > that caused major problems for both distribute and distutils2.
I guess you have a rough migration path in your mind? I guess some people here are interested. Regards, Thomas Güttler -- http://www.thomas-guettler.de/ _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
