At 09:35 AM 4/10/2006 +1000, Andrew Bennetts wrote: >On Sun, Apr 09, 2006 at 02:48:47PM -0400, Phillip J. Eby wrote: > > At 07:56 PM 4/9/2006 +0200, Martin v. Löwis wrote: >[...] > > >-1. These aren't external libraries; they are part of Python. > > > > They *were* external libraries. Also, many OS vendors nonetheless split > > the standard library into different system packages, e.g. Debian's > > longstanding tradition of excising the distutils into a separate > python-dev > > package. > >Debian has fixed this bug.
And there was much rejoicing. :) > > As much as we might wish that vendors not do these things, they often have > > practical matters of continuity and documentation to deal with; if they > > currently have a "python-ctypes" package, for example, they may wish to > > maintain that even when ctypes is bundled with 2.5. > >They can do that just by shipping an empty "python-ctypes" package that >depends >on the full python package. Yeah, but why do something that logical and simple when you can create elaborate patches to remove functionality from setup.py? ;) But you've convinced me. I'd still prefer we generate these packages' PKG-INFO from the "formerly external" packages' setup.py files in order to ensure the metadata is correct. But if we have to do it manually, we have to do it manually. _______________________________________________ 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
