At 03:25 PM 12/13/2005 +0000, Michael Hoffman wrote: >[Jim Fulton] > > Sure, if you only have one module, and if your module doesn't do any > > dynamic imports, and if the things your importing don't have dependencies, > > and ... > > > > I think it would be simpler to have a formal dependency system. > >More useful, yes, for all the reasons you listed. The fact that people >are still working on a formal dependency system, however, indicates >that it is not simpler.
Depends on your definition of "still working on". I'd characterize the dependency system offered by setuptools as receiving fine-tuning, rather than being under design or development. A few things have been tweaked in the last few months according to real-world feedback: breadth-first processing worked out to be better than depth-first when complex recursive dependencies are involved, and the handling of '-' in version numbers needed a minor adjustment. In any case, the algorithms involved are near-trivial; the most complex piece is the processing of complex version specifications like "CherryPy>=2.1.0,!=2.1.1-rc2,<2.2a" into a series of version intervals. The only outstanding feature request for the dependency resolution algorithm is supporting optional or replaceable dependencies such as "we need either scipy *or* Numeric". _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
