Nick Coghlan writes: > On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull <step...@xemacs.org> > wrote: > > Paul Moore writes: > > > > > End users should not need packaging tools on their machines. > > > > I think this desideratum is close to obsolete these days, with webapps > > in "the cloud" downloading resources (including, but not limited to, > > code) on an as-needed basis. > > There's still a lot more to the software world than what happens on > the public internet.
That's taking just one extreme out of context. The other extreme I mentioned is a whole (virtual) Python environment to go with your app. And I don't really see a middle ground, unless you're delivering a non-standard stdlib anyway, with all the stuff that end users don't need stripped out of it. They'll get the debugger and the profiler with Python; should we excise them from the stdlib just because end users don't need them? How about packaging diagnostic tools, especially in the early days of the new module? I agreed that end users should not need to download the packaging tools separately or in advance. But that's rather different from having a *requirement* that the tools not be included, or that installers should have no dependencies on the toolset outside of a minimal and opaque runtime module. _______________________________________________ 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
