No setuptools then. Good thing I check first. I will leave that part of
setup.py untouched. It only loads setuptools for bdist_mpkg, which
requires it.
Lenard
René Dudfield wrote:
yeah, good points.
For those reasons I think it's best to stay away from it on windows at least.
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 9:41 AM, Brian Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 2:18 PM, Lenard Lindstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A setuptools bug that prevented compilation when Pyrex is installed has
> been fixed. Now I am considering enabling setuptools by default for all
> builds. This will allow the building of eggs. It also means that the
> setup.py install command installs an egg rather than a normal packaged
> directory. Is this a good idea?
>
setuptools has only made my life more difficult and never helped me
once. It's made it harder for me to install things, impossible for me
to py2exe things, it messes up stack traces on exceptions by removing
the source line, and makes it much harder for me to browse source to
python based packages in my editor.
So while I like the idea of supporting Pypi or whatever, I would not
like to see pygame distribute that way as a rule. I vastly perfer a
packaged directory for everything but an explictly egg-based install.
110%.
But of course I may be missing something here... So what would be the
good things about making setuptools the default for building pygame?
Greg Ewing wrote:
Lenard Lindstrom wrote:
Now I am considering enabling setuptools by default for all builds.
This will allow the building of eggs. It also means that the
setup.py install command installs an egg rather than a normal
packaged directory. Is this a good idea?
I'd rather not have things use setuptools by default.
I noticed that some things suddenly started producing eggs
when setuptools is installed, which worries me, because
it means setuptools is making invasive changes that alter
the behaviour of existing things. I don't like that.
