On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 11:14:17 +1000 Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 8:43 AM, R. David Murray <rdmur...@bitdance.com> > wrote: > > When the removal was being pondered, the possibility of keeping certain > > bits that were more ready than others was discussed. Perhaps the best > > way forward is to put it back in bits, with the most finished (and PEP > > relevant) stuff going in first. That might also give non-packaging > > people bite-sized-enough chunks to actually digest and help with. > > This is the plan I'm going to propose. The previous approach was to > just throw the entirety of distutils2 in there, but there are some > hard questions that doesn't address, and some use cases it doesn't > handle. So, rather than importing it wholesale and making the stdlib > the upstream for distutils2, I believe it makes more sense for > distutils2 to remain an independent project, and we cherry pick bits > and pieces for the standard library's new packaging module as they > stabilise.
How is that going to be useful? Most people use distutils / packaging as an application, not a library. If you provide only a subset of the necessary features, people won't use packaging. Regards Antoine. -- Software development and contracting: http://pro.pitrou.net _______________________________________________ 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
