On May 26, 2010, at 3:37 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
> On 26 May 2010 08:11, Lennart Regebro <rege...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 06:22, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> - download a futures module from PyPI and live with the additional
>>> dependency
>>
>> Why would that be a problem?
>
> That has been hashed out repeatedly on this and other lists. Can it
> please be stipulated that for *some* people, in *some* cases, it is a
> problem?
Sure, but I for one fully support Lennart asking the question, because while in
the short term this *is* a problem with packaging tools in the Python
ecosystem, in the long term (as you do note) it's an organizational dysfunction
that can be addressed with better tools.
I think it would be bad to ever concede the point that sane factoring of
dependencies and code re-use aren't worth it because some jerk in Accounting or
System Operations wants you to fill out a requisition form for a software
component that's free and liberally licensed anyway.
To support the unfortunate reality that such jerks in such departments really
do in fact exist, there should be simple tools to glom a set of small, nicely
factored dependencies into a giant monolithic ball of crud that installs all at
once, and slap a sticker on the side of it that says "I am only filling out
your stupid form once, okay". This should be as distant as possible from the
actual decision to package things in sensibly-sized chunks.
In other words, while I kinda-sorta buy Brian's argument that having this
module in easy reach will motivate more people to use a standard, tested idiom
for parallelization, I *don't* think that the stdlib should be expanded simply
to accommodate those who just don't want to install additional packages for
anything.
_______________________________________________
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
