On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 5:53 PM, Paul Moore<p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2009/7/6 Tarek Ziadé <ziade.ta...@gmail.com>: >> why can't we just go ahead and continue the work as we started with PEP 376, >> introducing your work on PEP 302-like behavior. >> >> Then if we get a consensus on this PEP and introduce it in 2.7/3.2, >> setuptools will have to follow this consensus. > > Essentially, because when I ask questions, responses along the lines > of "you have to do it like X because setuptools does that" come back, > and (not being a setuptools user) I can't tell whether there's a valid > reason in there.
Notice that we created PEP 376 in distutils-SIG with most of the valid reasons/use cases setuptools had, with the help of Phillip, before I brought it up again on python-dev. > > I'm uncomfortable assuming that setuptools experience is irrelevant, > but I can't distinguish between valid arguments and "setuptools can't > change" arguments. > > I need to write another email with a list of outstanding open issues. > If we can thrash them out *without* getting bogged down in setuptools > compatibility questions, then I think we can move forward again. I'll > do that this evening. Ok, I'll wait for your work to work on the PEP again then, and your push in the hg repo as well. _______________________________________________ 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
