On Aug 20, 2016 3:09 PM, "Sylvain Corlay" <sylvain.cor...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Ralf, > > On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 11:42 PM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gomm...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On python-dev and in the bug tracker, Sylvain has understandably asked for a review with an eye to adding this new feature to Python 3.6 whose feature code cutoff is scheduled for a few weeks from now. As release manager, I am not opposed in general to adding new features to Distutils but I think we should be very cautious about modifying or adding new Distutils APIs, given that many third-party distribution authors want to support their packages on multiple versions. So I want to make sure that there is some agreement that adding this new API starting with 3.6 is a good thing to do rather than having it go in under the radar. >> >> >> I'd rather see that kind of thing added to setuptools. We're already having to deal with setuptools as a moving target, so if distutils becomes one again as well that means more testing with combinations of different Python and setuptools versions. Imho distutils changes should be bugfix and essential maintenance only. >> > > > Having the `has_flag` in a different location from `has_function` would be weird in my opinion.
I think the point though is that in your proposal, has_flag is in distutils 3.6, but has_function is in distutils 2.6, 2.7, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6. So they're still in different places in practice, and if your new feature is only in distutils 3.6 then almost no one will be able to use it within the next 3+ years. Otoh putting it in setuptools makes it uniformly usable for everyone immediately. -n
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
