Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What *should* happen now instead, is a plan for merging setuptools > into the distutils for 2.6. That includes making the decisions about > what "install" and "sdist" should do, and whether backward > compatibility of internal behaviors should be implicit or explicit.
+1. > Between 2.5 and 2.6, setuptools should continue to be developed in the > sandbox, and keep the name 'setuptools'. For 2.6, however, we should > merge > the code bases and have setuptools just be an alias. Or, perhaps > what is > now called setuptools should be called "distutils2" and distributed as > such, with "setuptools" only being a legacy name. But regardless, > the plan > should be to have only one codebase for 2.6, and to issue backported > releases of that codebase for at least Python 2.4 and 2.5. +1. > One final item that is a possibility: we could leave pkg_resources in > for 2.5, and add its documentation. This would allow people to begin > using its API to check for installed packages, accessing resources, etc. > I'd be interested in hearing folks' opinions about that, one way or the > other. This would be good. I believe pkg_resources is useful in 2.5 and in no way it represents a not properly integrated layer of additional functionalities (like setuptools is to distutils now). If you sincerely believe that pkg_resources' API is mature enough, I don't see any reason for keeping it off 2.5. Thanks for your hard work! Giovanni Bajo _______________________________________________ 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
