On 7 July 2018 at 01:25, Ned Deily <n...@python.org> wrote: > On Jul 6, 2018, at 19:43, Alexander Belopolsky > <alexander.belopol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think it will be prudent to get this command back in Python 3.7.1. My >> work-around was to simply copy the 20-something lines that define >> install_misc from Python 3.6 to my setup.py file. You'll still need those 20 lines in your code if you want to support Python 3.7.0, and *not* supporting 3.7.0 but supporting 3.7.1 doesn't seem like a good idea to me. TBH, I'd consider "copy the 20 lines of code into your own setup.py to be a perfectly acceptable workaround. >> It was my impression that it is precisely due to situations like this, >> distutils was considered more or less frozen for development and all new >> features went to setuptools. For a long while distutils was frozen, and yes it was basically because of a fear that nothing could be changed without potentially disrupting someone. But that resulted in essentially a paralysis of work on packaging for many years, and wasn't a good thing. The embargo on changes to distutils was lifted a long time ago - although we remain cautious about making changes because we don't want to break people's code. As Ned noted, you had the whole Python 3.7 alpha and beta phase to test your code, and if you had raised the issue then, we could have considered reverting this change (but my view would still have been "we'll remove it and you should just copy the code"). A quick search of bpo [1] shows many changes to distutils in recent time, FWIW. > If you want to pursue it, I think the best thing to do would be to bring up > the issue on the distutils-sig mailing list where the change probably should > have been discussed first if it wasn't and also reopen > https://bugs.python.org/issue29218. AFAIK, the removal hasn't come up as a > problem before in the nearly 18 months since the change was first merged into > the feature branch. IMO, a tracker issue was fine, and the OP could have commented there. Distutils-sig isn't really the right audience for minor detail changes like this - although if someone wanted to raise the broader principle "let's reinstate the total freeze on distutils changes" that would be appropriate for distutils-sig. I'd fully expect a resounding rejection for that proposition, though. At this point, I think the only realistic resolution would be to add a note to the "Porting to Python 3.7" docs explaining that users of install_misc should copy the code from 3.6 into their setup.py. But it's quite likely that the only person who needs that documentation is Alexander (we've not had any other reports of this issue to my knowledge) so that may be overkill... Paul [1] https://bugs.python.org/issue?%40search_text=&ignore=file%3Acontent&title=&%40columns=title&id=&%40columns=id&stage=6&creation=&creator=&activity=&%40columns=activity&%40sort=activity&actor=&nosy=&type=&components=3&versions=&dependencies=&assignee=&keywords=&priority=&status=2&%40columns=status&resolution=3&nosy_count=&message_count=&%40group=&%40pagesize=50&%40startwith=0&%40sortdir=on&%40action=search _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
