On 11 November 2015 at 15:08, Wayne Werner <waynejwer...@gmail.com> wrote: > > With all of the weirdness involved, it makes me wonder - could there be a > better way? If we waved our hands and were able to magically make Python > package management perfect, what would that look like? > > Would that kind of discussion even be valuable?
That's essentially what PEP 426 evolved into - an all-singing all-dancing wish list of what *my* dream packaging system would enable (especially once you include the "Deferred Features" section). In practice, most of that is "nice to have" rather than "absolutely essential" though, so we're in the midst of the process: 1. Figuring out incremental steps that help us to get from "here" to "there" by way of formalising what already exists 2. Figuring out which parts of "there" represent needless complexity that can just be dropped entirely Packaging systems are a uniquely difficult ship to steer (even moreso than programming language design), since interoperability is king, and you need to cope with legacy versions of both packaging tools *and* language runtimes. Regards, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
