On 24 September 2013 09:34, Ned Deily <n...@acm.org> wrote: > In general, I think this is a very important usability feature and I > am in favor of the general approach. Good work, all! I do have some > comments, primarily about items that are not currently addressed.
Your reply and Barry's suggest that Betteridge's law [1] applies to email subject lines, too ;) As far as easy_install goes, my current plan was actually to tackle that on the upstream side. If pip still depends on setuptools by the time of the Python 3.4 release, then it will depend on the *real* setuptools, easy_install and all. From my perspective, one golden rule of this integration is that we do *not* mess with the contents of the wheel files for pip and its dependencies - they're pristine upstream releases. This is mostly for technical reasons, but it also draws a sharp line of demarcation for any "aggregation or derivation?" questions, too. If pip has been updated by the time of its inclusion to depend on a cut down setuptools derivative that omits easy_install (or pip has switched to its own internal replacements instead), so much the better, but I consider that to be essentially independent of the CPython bundling situation, since it isn't something we have direct control over, and I consider the slight downside of potentially installing easy_install alongside pip to be dwarfed by the benefits of installing pip. As far as I am aware, the licensing on setuptools is currently limited to the "ZPL or PSF" declaration in the distribution metadata. Cheers, Nick. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
