Phillip J. Eby wrote: > I was surprised that MAL didn't comment *then*, actually, and mistakenly > thought it meant that our last discussion on the distutils-sig (and my > attempts to deal with the problems) had been successful. Between that and > MvL's mild response to the explicit discussion of supporting setuptools, I > thought their votes had effectively moved from -1 to -0. Off-list > discussion with Fredrik suggested that he too had shifted from -1 to -0,
I'm +1 on adding stuff to distutils (and other install tools) to make it *easier* for setuptools (and other install tools) to make a good job. I'm -1 on adding tools to the core that changes the structure of an installed Python system, without a full PEP process. If nobody can point to (or produce) a technical document that, in full detail, describes the mechanisms *used* by setuptools, including what files it creates, what the files contain, how they are used during import, how non-setuptools code can manipulate (or at least in- spect) the data, etc, setuptools should *not* go into 2.5. </F> _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
