On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 10:10 PM, Thomas Güttler < guettl...@thomas-guettler.de> wrote:
> Am 21.10.2015 um 18:46 schrieb Chris Barker: > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Thomas Güttler < > guettl...@thomas-guettler.de <mailto:guettl...@thomas-guettler.de>> wrote: > > > > 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? > > > > > > Yes -- because of exactly what you say above -- we really can't have a > SINGLE build system that will well support everything -- > > the common use-caes, sure (distutils already does that), but when it > comes to bulding complex packages like numpy, sciPy, etc, it's really > inadequate. > > What happens if the common use cases are inadequate? > > My guess: re-inventing the same stuff over and over again. Once in numpy, > once in scipy ... > > Why should it be impossible to get all the needs of numpy and scipy into > setuptools? > > I have a dream: For packaging and building package provides only **data**. > Data is condition-less: No single "if", "def" or method call. Just data: > json or yaml ... > > Even for complex packages. > > This data gets processed by setuptools. I don't see a need for more than > one library doing this. Plugins are nice and can solve edge cases. > setuptools is one bloated piece of code that contains too much features. I'd prefer more lean and mean package.
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
