On 27 May 2010 16:56, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> We'll just have to agree to disagree, then. Plenty of evidence has
> been provided; it just doesn't happen to apply to you. Fine, but I
> wish you'd make the "to me" part explicit, because I know that it does
> apply to others, many of them, fr
Michael Foord writes:
> To my mind one of the most important benefits of a "sumo" style
> distribution is not just that it easily provides a whole bunch of useful
> modules - but that it *highlights* which modules are the community
> blessed "best of breed".
That has several problems.
(1)
Lennart Regebro writes:
> If licensing is a problem I guess you'd need to have permission to
> relicense them all to the Python license,
Licensing compatibility is only a problem for copyleft, but most
copyleft licenses have "mere aggregation is not derivation" clauses.
Corporate concern about
On 27/05/2010 16:56, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Paul Moore writes:
> On 27 May 2010 00:11, geremy condra wrote:
> > I'm not clear, you seem to be arguing that there's a market for many
> > augmented python distributions but not one. Why not just have one
> > that includes the best
Lennart Regebro writes:
> One worry with an official sumo distribution is that it could become
> an excuse for *not* putting something in the stdlib.
> Otherwise it's an interesting idea.
On the contrary, that is the meat of why it's an interesting idea.
I really don't think the proponents o
Paul Moore writes:
> On 27 May 2010 00:11, geremy condra wrote:
> > I'm not clear, you seem to be arguing that there's a market for many
> > augmented python distributions but not one. Why not just have one
> > that includes the best from each domain?
>
> Because that's "bloat". You later a
OK, I had an idea here:
How about that the people affected by difficulties in getting software
approved got together to put together not a sumo-python, but a
python-extras package? That package could include all the popular
stuff, like SciPy, Numpy, twisted, distribute, buildout, virtualenv,
pip,
On 27 May 2010 00:11, geremy condra wrote:
> I'm not clear, you seem to be arguing that there's a market for many
> augmented python distributions but not one. Why not just have one
> that includes the best from each domain?
Because that's "bloat". You later argue that a web designer wouldn't
car
One worry with an official sumo distribution is that it could become
an excuse for *not* putting something in the stdlib.
Otherwise it's an interesting idea.
--
Lennart Regebro: Python, Zope, Plone, Grok
http://regebro.wordpress.com/
+33 661 58 14 64
_
Hello,
sorry to interrupt your discussion but..
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 04:09, Yaniv Aknin wrote:
>> > Because scientists, financial analysts, web designers, etc all have
>> > different needs.
>>
>> My point is just that a web designer probably doesn't care if he's
>> got numpy, nor does a mathem
>
> > Because scientists, financial analysts, web designers, etc all have
> > different needs.
>
> My point is just that a web designer probably doesn't care if he's
> got numpy, nor does a mathematician care if he has cherrypy
> onboard. They only care when the tools they need aren't there,
> whic
At 11:41 PM 5/26/2010 +0100, Paul Moore wrote:
I'm genuinely struggling to see how a Sumo distribution ever comes
into being under your proposal. There's no evidence that anyone wants
it (otherwise it would have been created by now!!)
Actually, sumo distributions *have* been created; it's just
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 4:57 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On 27/05/10 09:11, geremy condra wrote:
>>>
>>> Specialised distributions are another matter - I can see a "web stack"
>>> distribution comprising your TurboGears example (or should it be
>>> Django, or...?). Enthought essentially do that for
On 27/05/10 09:11, geremy condra wrote:
Specialised distributions are another matter - I can see a "web stack"
distribution comprising your TurboGears example (or should it be
Django, or...?). Enthought essentially do that for a "Scientific
Python" distribution. There could easily be others. But
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 3:41 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> On 26 May 2010 13:46, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> This is not what I'm suggesting at all. The stdlib wouldn't shrink
>> (well, we could dump outdated modules but that's a separate decision).
>
> Ah, OK. In that case, I see the argument for a "Sumo
Le mercredi 26 mai 2010 à 23:41 +0100, Paul Moore a écrit :
>
> But a general
> purpose "Sumo" distribution *on top of* the stdlib? I'm skeptical.
> (Personally, my "essential extras" are pywin32, cx_Oracle and that's
> about it - futures might make it if it doesn't get into the stdlib,
> but that
On 26 May 2010 13:46, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> This is not what I'm suggesting at all. The stdlib wouldn't shrink
> (well, we could dump outdated modules but that's a separate decision).
Ah, OK. In that case, I see the argument for a "Sumo" distribution as
weak for a different reason - for general
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:46 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Le mercredi 26 mai 2010 à 13:19 +0100, Paul Moore a écrit :
>>
>> I'm not sure how a "Sumo" approach would work in practical terms, and
>> this thread isn't really the place to discuss, but there's a couple of
>> points I think are worth mak
Le mercredi 26 mai 2010 à 13:19 +0100, Paul Moore a écrit :
>
> I'm not sure how a "Sumo" approach would work in practical terms, and
> this thread isn't really the place to discuss, but there's a couple of
> points I think are worth making:
>
> * For a "Sumo" distribution to make sense, some rel
19 matches
Mail list logo
