Paul Moore wrote:
2009/7/8 P.J. Eby <p...@telecommunity.com>:
If it were being driven by setuptools, I'd have just implemented it myself
and presented it as a fait accompli. I can't speak to Tarek's motives, but
I assume that, as stated in the PEP, the primary driver is supporting the
distutils being able to uninstall things, and secondarily to allow other
tools to be built on top of the API.
My understanding is that all of the various distutils PEPs were driven
by the "packaging summit" ay PyCon. The struggle here seems to be to
find *anyone* from that summit who will now comment on the discussion
:-(
I was there, and I've been commenting!
There might have been more discussion after the language summit and the
one open space event I went to. But the focus as I recall was static
metadata and version specification. When I originally brought up static
metadata at the summit, I meant metadata describing the sources in the
distribution, so that we can get rid of setup.py's. From that metadata,
I want to be able to generate .debs, .rpms, .eggs, etc.
But I think we've veered into metadata that describes what has been
installed. I don't think that's so useful. As I've said, this is private
to the installers. If 2 installers want to communicate with each other
about what they've installed, then they can agree on that data. I just
don't find it generally useful for all installers, and therefore not
useful for distutils.
I'd like to get back to the metadata that describes the source files.
That's where the real value lies, in my opinion. I'll try and work on a
post to distutils-sig explaining my thinking.
_______________________________________________
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
