On 17/03/2008, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >The PEP suggests that other package managers also benefit. How do they > >benefit if the bootstrap script installs setuptools? > > Because those other package managers depend, in fact, on setuptools, > or at least pkg_resources... which was why the original proposal was > to just include pkg_resources in the first place. :)
I'm puzzled. We seem to be talking about adding a module to the stdlib whose basic function is to download and install setuptools? How is this better than just including setuptools in the stdlib? Personally, I have no problem per se with including setuptools in the stdlib. Maybe that means I miss the subtle benefit of this approach... I'm -1 on having a module which just installs setuptools. I'm +0 on including pkg_resources (as described in PEP 365) in the stdlib. I'm +lots on someone giving a clear explanation of the meaning and interrelationship of the various terms involved in this discussion (setuptools, easy_install, pkg_resources, eggs, "package managers" as distinct from setuptools, etc etc) so that the discussion gets some much-needed clarity :-( I'm -1 on adding anything until PEP 365 is updated to match what is being proposed, and then that amended PEP is submitted for discussion. Paul. _______________________________________________ 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
