> Well, it might be replaced by a protracted discussion of how the > module should work and what its API should be, but perhaps that would > be a better one to have. :)
Indeed, that's likely to happen :-) > So, the original proposal (from the previous thread about this) was > that the module be named easy_install, and that it simply downloads > setuptools and delegates to the "real" easy_install. That way, > people can simply use "python -m easy_install ...", without worrying > about whether setuptools has been installed yet. I thought the original proposal was to install a *binary* easy_install that takes that function. > IIRC, other package management tools such as zc.buildout and > workingenv can then be installed using easy_install. > > Any objections? Should I revise the PEP? I'm fine with the module, but would really like to see a command line utility in addition. This, of course, would raise the issue who "owns" the easy_install script name; ideally, the script would not have to be overwritten when setuptools gets installed. Regards, Martin _______________________________________________ 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
