On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 12:02 PM, holger krekel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> What about removing some magic and using a standard setup.py? > > that's a good idea, i think. > > Actually i'd like to have a (generated or manually written for > now) setup.py that plays along nicely with setuptools. > Maybe it'S good if it also works without setuptools? I would rather use setuptools. You could remove the whole py/bin/win32 directory as setuptools will create an .exe for each script. It's also easier to include data files, and makes development easier by being able to install the package in-place (python setup.py develop). However, it's also possible to create a standard distutils setup.py, which works with setuptools easy_install (you basically already have it) and which allows building a binary package for windows. > > What do you think about starting a branch (based on release/0.9.x) > to get it towards such a state? Yes, why not. You want me to donate some spare time to work on it? What do you think about distributing the greenlet module as it's own package? Do you know about http://pypi.python.org/pypi/greenlet/? (I've recently tried the eventlet library, which specifies the above as a dependency). Regards, - Ralf _______________________________________________ py-dev mailing list py-dev@codespeak.net http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/py-dev
