On 20 February 2013 00:54, Fred Drake <f...@fdrake.net> wrote: > I'd posit that anything successful will no longer need to be added to > the standard library, to boot. Packaging hasn't done well there.
distlib may be the exception, though. Packaging tools are somewhat unique because of the chicken and egg issue involved in having a packaging tool with external dependencies - who installs your dependencies for you? So enabling technology (library code to perform packaging-related tasks, particularly in support of standardised formats) could be better available from the stdlib. > I'd rather see a successful packaging story develop than bundle it into the > standard library. The later just isn't that interesting any more. Bundling too early is a bad idea though. distlib is developing fast and to do so it needs (1) a development cycle independent of python's and (2) compatibility and ease of use with earlier versions of Python (the latter is also critical for adoption in place of custom code in packaging tools). Aiming for an accelerated level of development targeting inclusion in Python 3.4 is plausible, though. MAL pointed out that agreeing standards but not offering tools to support them in the stdlib is risky, as people have no incentive to adopt those standards. We've got 6 months or more until 3.4 feature freeze, let's not make any decision too soon, though. Paul. _______________________________________________ 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
