Talin wrote:
What I am doing right now is creating a new extension project using
setuputils, and keeping notes on what I do. So for example, I start by
creating the directory structure:
mkdir myproject
cd myproject
mkdir src
mkdir test
I'd forgotten about this until I
Talin schrieb:
To that extent, it can be useful sometimes to have someone who is in the
process of learning how to use the system, and who is willing to
carefully analyze and write down their own experiences while doing so.
I readily agree that the documentation can be improved, and applaud
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Talin schrieb:
To that extent, it can be useful sometimes to have someone who is in the
process of learning how to use the system, and who is willing to
carefully analyze and write down their own experiences while doing so.
I readily agree that the documentation
Talin schrieb:
As far as rewriting it goes - I can only rewrite things that I understand.
So if you want this to change, you obviously need to understand the
entire distutils. It's possible to do that; some people have done
it (the understanding part) - just go ahead and start reading source
On 11/27/06, Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Talin schrieb:
As far as rewriting it goes - I can only rewrite things that I understand.
So if you want this to change, you obviously need to understand the
entire distutils. It's possible to do that; some people have done
it (the
Mike Orr wrote:
On 11/27/06, Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Talin schrieb:
As far as rewriting it goes - I can only rewrite things that I understand.
So if you want this to change, you obviously need to understand the
entire distutils. It's possible to do that; some people have done
I've been looking once again over the docs for distutils and setuptools,
and thinking to myself this seems a lot more complicated than it ought
to be.
Before I get into detail, however, I want to explain carefully the scope
of my critique - in particular, why I am talking about setuptools on
Talin wrote:
But it isn't just the docs that are at fault here - otherwise, I'd be
posting this on a different mailing list. It seems like the whole
architecture is 'diff'-based, a series of patches on top of patches,
which are in need of some serious refactoring.
so to summarize, you
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
Talin wrote:
But it isn't just the docs that are at fault here - otherwise, I'd be
posting this on a different mailing list. It seems like the whole
architecture is 'diff'-based, a series of patches on top of patches,
which are in need of some serious refactoring.
On 11/26/06, Talin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been looking once again over the docs for distutils and setuptools,
and thinking to myself this seems a lot more complicated than it ought
to be.
Before I get into detail, however, I want to explain carefully the scope
of my critique - in
At 01:21 PM 11/26/2006 -0800, Mike Orr wrote:
A comprehensive third-party manual that integrates the documentation
would be a good place to start. Even the outline of such a manual
would be a good. That would give a common baseline of understanding
for package users, package developers, and core
On 11/26/06, Phillip J. Eby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have noticed, however, that a signficant number of help requests for
setuptools can be answered by internal links to one of its manuals -- and
when a topic comes up that isn't in the manual, I usually add it.
Hmm, I may have a couple
Mike Orr wrote:
On 11/26/06, Phillip J. Eby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have noticed, however, that a signficant number of help requests for
setuptools can be answered by internal links to one of its manuals -- and
when a topic comes up that isn't in the manual, I usually add it.
Hmm, I may
13 matches
Mail list logo
