On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 9:47 PM, Chris Jerdonek <chris.jerdo...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 4:32 AM, Tarek Ziadé <ta...@ziade.org> wrote: >> Here's my proposal - actually it's Nick's proposal but I want to make sure >> we're on the same >> page wrt steps, and I think that addresses Antoine concerns >> >> 1. create a new package, called pkglib (or whatever), located at hg >> .python.org as a new project that just strictly contains : >> >> ... >> >> That way, we won't have the usual controversy about distutils' command >> machinery. People will use whatever tool >> and hopefully this tool will be based on pkgutil > > Hopefully it will be based on pkglib (or whatever) rather than pkgutil. ;)
Actually, I'd be happy to do the rearrangement needed to turn pkgutil into a package rather than the current single module. I think we'd have people breaking out the torches and pitchforks if we ever ended up with modules or packages called packaging, pkglib *and* pkgutil all in the standard library. "distcore" might work, since they're core functionality for distribution more so than they are for packages. Anyway, the essential idea of getting those 4 modules (and support libraries) that almost made it into 3.3 into sufficiently good shape that they can be distributed independently of distutils2 and adopted as a dependency by multiple projects is a good one. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ 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
