On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 19:15:54 +0200, wrote:
> Looks like nobody cares enough about the packaging docs :) If there is
> no feedback, hereâs what I propose to do:
I think you should go ahead and make your changes, and then we'll
be able to see what it really looks like and decide if anything
ough
I do care :)
Looks fine
Please push, as we can always change and fix things afterwards in the tip
before 3.3 is out.
Le 1 juin 2011 19:38, "Éric Araujo" a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> Looks like nobody cares enough about the packaging docs :) If there is
> no feedback, here’s what I propose to do:
>
> - Ad
Hi Benjamin,
>> For users needing the legacy distutils docs in 3.3, I would move the
>> older distutils Doc/install/index.rst to Doc/distutils/install.rst, and
>> add a link to Doc/distutils in Doc/library/distutils (because the main
>> page would no longer link to Doc/distutils).
>
> Or we could
2011/6/1 Éric Araujo :
> Hi,
>
> Looks like nobody cares enough about the packaging docs :)
Perhaps your solutions are perfect already. :)
> If there is
> no feedback, here’s what I propose to do:
>
> - Add new Doc/library/packaging* files (library reference for developers
> of packaging tools)
>
Hi,
Looks like nobody cares enough about the packaging docs :) If there is
no feedback, here’s what I propose to do:
- Add new Doc/library/packaging* files (library reference for developers
of packaging tools)
- Add new packaging-based “Installing Python Projects” to Doc/install,
replacing old
