Ivan Krstić schrieb: > 1) Having a large, canonical repository of useful Python code that's > much more encompassing than Cheeseshop would be a good thing for Python.
It's probably due to deficiencies in my mastering of the English language: What do you mean by "encompassing" here? If you are requesting that all Python software in the world should be listed in a canonical repository, I say that the Cheeseshop *is* that canonical repository. If some package isn't listed, it's the "fault" of the author of the package and its users, not the fault of the Cheeseshop. I can't see how a *different* repository could have any chance of becoming canonical. > 2) It appears the way to create and maintain such a repository is to > ingrain it into the language culture, whereby it becomes unusual that > useful redistributable code /isn't/ in the repository. Well, the Cheeseshop is indeed ingrained into the language. That it becomes unusual that software isn't listed there is merely a matter of time. > 3) To address 1) and 2), we need a canonical package layout and > build/install/test cycle that are easy for developers to work with, > well-documented, and for which there exist better and less arcane tools > than what we have now. The only realistic chance for that to happen is to make the distutils less arcane and better. Regards, Martin _______________________________________________ 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
