Phillip J. Eby wrote: >>> This sounds good. We definitely need *something* with >>> a more modular and better documented architecture than >>> distutils. >> >> I definitely disagree. Why are you calling distutils non-modular? >> It was designed to be modular and extensible, > > No, it's designed to be subclassable and customizable. That is very > different from being extensible. setuptools is somewhat > extensible. zc.buildout is very extensible. But the distutils are > not extensible. The documentation or lack thereof has nothing to do > with it. > > "Modular" is a red herring. The distutils isn't a bad framework, for > its time. But it was not designed with extensibility (vs. > customizability) in mind. > > The difference between the two is that an extensible system is one > that follows the same rules for extenders as it does for its core > developers.
Being among the ones who have fought many times against the lack of a proper extensible design in distutils, I can't but agree. Giovanni Bajo _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
