On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 6:42 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> Nothing in the PEP is particularly original - almost all of it is
> either stolen from other build and packaging systems, or is designed
> to provide a *discoverable* alternative to existing
> setuptools/distribute/pip practices (specifically,
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Le Tue, 19 Feb 2013 10:24:15 +,
> Paul Moore a écrit :
>> On Tuesday, 19 February 2013, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > The only tool in wide spread use that understands part of the 1.2
>> > data is setuptools/distribute, but it can o
Le Tue, 19 Feb 2013 11:36:09 +0100,
Antoine Pitrou a écrit :
>
> I think Marc-André is right that the acceptability of the standard
> should be judged on the availability of (preferably standard)
> implementations. If the standard isn't implemented, then perhaps it
> means it's too ambitious / to
Le Tue, 19 Feb 2013 10:24:15 +,
Paul Moore a écrit :
> On Tuesday, 19 February 2013, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>
> >
> > The only tool in wide spread use that understands part of the 1.2
> > data is setuptools/distribute, but it can only understand the
> > Requires-Dist field of that version of th
On Tuesday, 19 February 2013, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>
> The only tool in wide spread use that understands part of the 1.2 data
> is setuptools/distribute, but it can only understand the Requires-Dist
> field of that version of the spec (only because the 1.1 Requires field was
> deprecated) and inte
