On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 7:15 PM, Yaniv Aknin <ya...@aknin.name> wrote: >> Well... a middle ground certainly could exist; perhaps in the form of an >> "Extended Standard Library" (community distribution), with simple >> installation and management tools.
I'm not sure about the 'installation and management tools' part, but this is basically the idea I was trying to articulate: a middle ground between a 'fat' stdlib and a 'lean' one. >> It could be "blessed" by python-dev and maintain a high standard (only >> well established best-of-breed modules with a commitment of ongoing >> maintenance and more than one maintainer - something that the stdlib itself >> doesn't stick to). A common license could even be chosen, potentially >> allowing corporations to approve the extended package in a single pass. If we could do it that would be great, IMHO. > I read the 'sumo' thread before I read this (and replied in depth there), > but I think Michael and I mean similar things. > - Yaniv I don't think I'm understanding you correctly in that thread then, ISTM that you're advocating better packaging systems as an alternative to this. Would you mind clarifying? Geremy Condra _______________________________________________ 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
