2009/6/30 Tarek Ziadé <ziade.ta...@gmail.com>: > On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 8:37 PM, Paul Moore<p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> - The terminology and focus feels setuptools-inspired (my apologies if >> that's not the case). Expect pushback from setuptools haters... > > setuptools implemented *needed* features, like a way for developers to browse > installed packages.
No problem with any of that. Please understand that on the whole, I'm in favour of the setuptools features. (While I dislike intensely some of the setuptools "ecosystem", such as easy_install. In fact, one of my goals in wanting this PEP accepted is to ensure that I can get the "good bits" of setuptools, without having to buy into the easy_install, dependency management, automated download infrastructure that currently goes with it). > We said during the summit at Pycon that we wanted this feature in > Distutils, (Guido said so) "We" in this context denotes the people at the summit. Please remember that people who weren't there still have an opinion - and it may well differ. I'm not saying that it *does* differ, just that the view of the summit should not be viewed as conclusive (unless the way Python is developed is very different from how I understand it). > So I worked in PEP 376 to introduce them. And as with any PEP, that's a difficult and thankless task (I got a taste myself with PEP 302, and that was far easier), so just for the record, you have my thanks for doing this. > Now if the fact that we want to introduce the good ideas of setuptools > into distutils, > (problems Phillip resolved) will make people push it back *even* they > are good idead, needed features, > is something we need to fight against. But there *are* issues with setuptools. Some users have mentioned them on a number of occasions. I've raised a few myself. By all means introduce the good ideas into the core - but make sure people agree that the ideas *are* good. And remember - all I said was that people may react against the setuptools-style terminology. Not that they dislike the *idea*, just that they might dislike the way it's presented. After all, one common complaint with setuptools (and one that I agree with) is that its documentation is obscure to the point of being hostile. >> - It's quite dense for the casual reader not familiar with the >> terminology. I've never managed to read the whole thing through, >> personally. > > I'll try to add a definitions section, Thank you. I'll try to make the time to go through the PEP and comment more fully. >> [1] I'd actually like it if the PEP defined an uninstall command - >> something like "python -m distutils.uninstall packagename". It can be >> as minimalist as you like, but I'd like to see it present. > > it's already there: > > http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0376/#adding-an-uninstall-function No, that defines an API, which as stated in the PEP, "allows a third-party application to use the uninstall function and make sure it's the only program that can remove a distribution it has previously installed". It does NOT define a standard uninstall command, to complement the standard install command. 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
