Jim Fulton wrote at 2009-2-10 14:01 -0500: > >On Feb 10, 2009, at 1:49 PM, Dieter Maurer wrote: > >> Jim Fulton wrote at 2009-2-8 13:00 -0500: >>> ... >>> IMO, introducing an extra is like introducing a new package and in a >>> rather complicated way. >> >> I agree with the first part of your sentence -- but cannot follow you >> with the second part: >> >> How can "'extra' : <sequence of required distributions>" >> be more complicated than creating, maintaining and >> distributing a complete package? > > >Because you have to remember to test each valid permutation of the >package. I bet no one does.
But that is the same when each extra is represented by an individual package. Then, too, you have to test each valid combination -- and few will do it. > Also, users have to be aware of the >extras. PyPI doesn't advertise extras I am interested in extras only when I am interested in the package itself. Of course, the package should document in some way relevant extras. >nor are there standard ways to >document them. I recently looked at documentation for a few "standard" packages on PyPI -- and apart from all using "rest" and a bit of classifiction, I could not detect much "standard" for them, too. >In general, it makes an already complicated packaging >system more complicated. That's something I do not get... An extra is a shorthand for a separate package with a few extra dependancies. Sure, shorthands are not strictly necessary. Sure, complexity increases slightly. Nevertheless, they are often valuable. -- Dieter _______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
