On Oct 13, 2006, at 7:39 AM, Talin wrote:
Now that I've gotten your attention :)Seriously, though, I am not proposing that there *never* be additions tothe standard library -- instead, I simply want 'easy_install' to work 100% of the time, so that there's much less reason to add something to the standard library. In fact, I would go a step further and say that I'd like to see thestandard library cut in half. For backwards compatibility with existing Python programs, you would simply type 'easy_install legacy', and all ofthe old "batteries included" modules would be installed for you. For writing *new* programs however, you could use a much lighter, slimmer distribution. How's that for Py3000 cruft removal? :)
I'm +1 on the general idea.
Unfortunately, the main obstacle at the moment is that about 50% of thepackages out there aren't compatible with setuptools. About 50% of the time when I say 'easy_install <bleargh>' it downloads the package and then says 'setup.py' not found.Moreover, I want 'easy_uninstall' to work just as easily, and I want it to clean up the installed package without a trace. I want to be able todownload X, check it out, say "blech, I don't like X", uninstall, and have no guilt or loose files cluttering up my site-packages.
There's no need to wait for py3k for this, you can start on this right now :-). The first part is probably mostly evangelizing and/or patching packages.
The second part is extending setuptools with better package management, PJE has some ideas about that, hop over to distutils-sig to ask where to start ;-)
RonaldP.S. I already have a lightweight version of easy_uninstall, it's called rm :-)
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list Python-3000@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
