Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
python-dev
Home
About this group
Join this group
Message from discussion packaging location ?
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Antoine Pitrou  
View profile  
 More options Sep 12 2012, 3:23 pm
From: Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 21:21:45 +0200
Local: Wed, Sep 12 2012 3:21 pm
Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] packaging location ?
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 15:02:42 -0400

Éric Araujo <e...@netwok.org> wrote:
> Hi,

> Lib/packaging is in the repository history, and in my backup clones, but
> it’s not visible in any branch head as we have no branch for 3.4 yet.  I
> can bring the directory back with a simple Mercurial command.

> However, it’s not clear to me that we want to do that.  At the inception
> of the project, we wanted a new distutils with support for the latest
> PEPs and improved extensibility.  Then we found a number of problems in
> the PEPs; the last time I pointed the problems out I got no reply but
> “find a PEP dictator and propose changes”.  And when I started the
> thread about removing packaging in 3.3, hundreds of replies discussed
> changing the whole distutils architecture, splitting the project,
> exploring new systems, etc., which is why I’m not sure that we can just
> bring back packaging in 3.4 as it was and continue with our previous
> roadmap.

People who want a whole new distutils architecture can start distutils3
(or repackaging) if they want. If I have to give my advice, I would
favour re-integrating packaging in the stdlib or, better, integrating
all changes, one by one, into distutils itself.

Regards

Antoine.

--
Software development and contracting: http://pro.pitrou.net

_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-...@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/dev-python%2Bgarchi...


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2013 Google