On 6 Jul, 2009, at 9:53, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
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.
But why break existing code without having any other benifits? If I
read the discussion correctly the name would be changed without any
changes to the contents of the metadata directory. I would be more
inclined to be in favour if the name change had a sound technical
reason, such as a change of the contents of the directory which would
make setuptools "egg-info" directories incompatible with the PEP376
ones.
Ronald
_______________________________________________
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
