2009/7/6 Tarek Ziadé <ziade.ta...@gmail.com>: > 2009/7/6 Ronald Oussoren <ronaldousso...@mac.com>: >> I'm -1 on changing the name. For better or worse setuptools is the elephant >> in the room w.r.t. package management and it would IMHO be better to stay >> compatible (even if the stdlib only implements a subset of >> setuptools/pkg_resources) >> > > I'd rather see the elephant evolves. > > I don't see why we should bend a standard we want to introduce in the stdlib, > for a third-party package that is able to evolve to stick to a new standard > without any problem.
I agree with this. The big problem is that setuptools development seems to have essentially stagnated, and while that shouldn't be something we care about, it does need to be considered. Although my instinct is to fight against "do it our way because we won't change to do it your way" arguments, I have to ask whether the (purely internal) name of the metadata directory is really worth fighting over. I'm +0 on changing the name, as long as it's the *only* "do it this way because setuptools isn't going to change" issue. If more such issues come up, I'll become +1 on a clean break, to avoid endless such arguments and restrictions. 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
