-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jim Fulton wrote:
> On Sep 6, 2007, at 4:02 AM, Chris Withers wrote:
>
>> Martin Aspeli wrote:
>> Jim Fulton wrote:
>>> I'm very much against making setuptools *more* complicated
>>> than it already is.
>> Indeed, but surely managing
On Sep 6, 2007, at 4:02 AM, Chris Withers wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
I'm very much against making setuptools *more* complicated
than it already is.
Indeed, but surely managing "known good" sets of components
comes under its remit of version management?
Sure. It does th
On 9/6/07, Chris Withers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yup, and this was the reason for my original question to Jim: why do
> something in zc.buildout rather than fixing the problems with setuptools?
It's not at all clear to me that this suggests there's actually a
problem with setuptools. The des
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
I'm very much against making setuptools *more* complicated than it
already is.
Indeed, but surely managing "known good" sets of components comes
under its remit of version management?
Sure. It does this via requirements.
Ok, forgive me for being dumb t
Chris Withers wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
On Sep 5, 2007, at 10:48 AM, Chris Withers wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
I'm very much against making setuptools *more* complicated than it
already is.
Indeed, but surely managing "known good" sets of components comes
under its remit of version management?
Jim Fulton wrote:
On Sep 5, 2007, at 10:48 AM, Chris Withers wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
I'm very much against making setuptools *more* complicated than it
already is.
Indeed, but surely managing "known good" sets of components comes
under its remit of version management?
Sure. It does thi
