I've been trying to follow this discussion now for weeks. The signal to noise
ratio is pretty low.
I'd love to have an stdlib solution for distribution packaging and installation.
But I think we might as well pack it up and go home if the folks whom are
contributing to the discussion "recreationally" (whom are not themselves
implementers and potential implementers or spec writers or potential spec
writers of packaging systems) continue to chime in on *every single issue*,
contributing only stop energy. It's just completely pointless.
- C
On 7/15/09 12:34 PM, P.J. Eby wrote:
At 04:59 PM 7/15/2009 +0100, Paul Moore wrote:
- Virtualenv isn't a workaround (I don't know virtualenv, I'll take
your word for it)
It's not one for system package maintainers because it would effectively
be managing multiple instances of 'python'. Really not a suitable solution.
- I do not believe that it's clear that sanctioning the setuptools
workaround as the "right" approach by building it into the Python
core/stdlib is the right thing to do.
I still don't understand how we're doing that.
_______________________________________________
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/lists%40plope.com
_______________________________________________
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
