I'm learning a bit about setuptools and distutils, so sorry if this is
a no brainer: Are we using only distutils for matplotlib? I.e. - no
setuptools?
This is because I stumbled across this at the setuptools page:
http://peak.telecommunity.com/DevCenter/setuptools
Feature Highlights:
We support setuptools, but we do not require it.
On Friday 23 February 2007 5:46:58 am Edin Salkovic wrote:
> I'm learning a bit about setuptools and distutils, so sorry if this is
> a no brainer: Are we using only distutils for matplotlib? I.e. - no
> setuptools?
>
> This is because I stumbled
Darren Dale wrote:
> We support setuptools, but we do not require it.
So, it sounds like setuptools is required now if one has Python 2.3. If
so, is that acceptable--is the gain worth the pain? Is there any
significant pain associated with requiring setuptools, at least for
people with Python
(Picking up this thread a bit late... And I just wrote a longer email
which got munched due to email configuration issues...)
I'm responsible for the "package_data" keyword being added to setup.py.
The bottom line is Python 2.3 is still supported. I simply didn't
realize that it would screw thi
Andrew,
I agree with your proposal; I think it makes more sense than either
alternative. Let's see what John says when he gets back from his vacation.
Eric
Andrew Straw wrote:
> (Picking up this thread a bit late... And I just wrote a longer email
> which got munched due to email configuratio
Andrew Straw wrote:
> 2) make our own distutils monkeypatch a la setuptools. Looking at
> setuptools/dist.py, this doesn't look trivial -- certainly beyond my
> free bandwidth capacity.
Actually, it ought to be pretty trivial without setuptools (but compatible with
setuptools, AFAICT). Here is
