On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 12:27 PM, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote: > On Fri, 3 Dec 2010 18:11:57 -0500 > James Y Knight <f...@fuhm.net> wrote: > >> On Dec 3, 2010, at 5:52 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote: >> >> > Am 03.12.2010 23:48, schrieb Éric Araujo: >> >>> But I'm not interested at all in having it in distutils2. I want the >> >>> Python build itself to use it, and alas, I can't because of the freeze. >> >> You can’t in 3.2, true. Neither can you in 3.1, or any previous >> >> version. If you implement it in distutils2, you have very good chances >> >> to get it for 3.3. Isn’t that a win? >> > >> > It is, unfortunately, a very weak promise. Until distutils2 is >> > integrated in Python, I probably won't spend any time on it. >> >> It seems like it'd be a good idea to start integrating distutils2 into >> python trunk immediately after the 3.2 branch is cut, then. > > +1 from me.
+1 too. Just to clarify my position in a few sentences: - I was told not to progressively change distutils - the PEPs for my changes were accepted under the condition that the changes would be made in distutils2 - PEP 384 is yet another accepted PEP, why the rule would change - because it's a small feature ? - I have tons of small features I had to revert and push back in distutils2 If Martin changes make it into Distutils1, I am going to ask that a collection of small features that I have should go there too, because they "should not break things" Regards Tarek -- Tarek Ziadé | http://ziade.org _______________________________________________ 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
