Opened 15 years ago
Closed 15 years ago
#22403 closed enhancement (fixed)
replace setuptools with distribute
Reported by: | akitada@… | Owned by: | jmroot (Joshua Root) |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | Normal | Milestone: | |
Component: | ports | Version: | 1.8.1 |
Keywords: | Cc: | MarcusCalhoun-Lopez (Marcus Calhoun-Lopez), stechert@…, macports.org@… | |
Port: | py26-distribute py25-distribute py26-setuptools py25-setuptools |
Change History (10)
comment:1 follow-up: 2 Changed 15 years ago by jmroot (Joshua Root)
comment:2 Changed 15 years ago by akitada@…
Replying to jmr@…:
If I understand what you're suggesting here, why would we not just make setuptools replaced_by distribute?
Because I think setuptools and distribute ports should be kept as different ports for up coming Distribute 0.7 release. Distribute 0.7 is, unline 0.6, going to drop setuptools compatibility. I propose to use name "setuptools" for Distribute 0.6 and "distribute" for Distribute 0.7.
comment:3 follow-up: 5 Changed 15 years ago by macports.org@…
Why not distribute0.6
for Distribute 0.6 and distribute
for >= 0.7?
There are people who (still) want to actual setuptools, not distribute, because they feel it's been better tested and they're not confident in distribute yet. Furthermore, since he's been threatened of irrelevance PJE has started working on Setuptools again.
As a result, I really don't think setuptools's code should just be replaced by distribute's in the setuptools
port. Plus it'd be a lie.
comment:5 Changed 15 years ago by akitada@…
Replying to macports.org@…:
Why not
distribute0.6
for Distribute 0.6 anddistribute
for >= 0.7?There are people who (still) want to actual setuptools, not distribute, because they feel it's been better tested and they're not confident in distribute yet. Furthermore, since he's been threatened of irrelevance PJE has started working on Setuptools again.
As a result, I really don't think setuptools's code should just be replaced by distribute's in the
setuptools
port. Plus it'd be a lie.
Distribute *is* a lie and but it's a good one. Do you have any specific issues that Distribute fails but setuptools just works? setuptools port has been already spreaded in MacPorts and I think it's the easiest way of providing better software to users. (Let me say this again. Yes, you're right. it's a lie)
comment:6 follow-up: 7 Changed 15 years ago by macports.org@…
Distribute *is* a lie and but it's a good one.
Yes and no. Distribute is a fork exposing a setuptools module, but you know what when you're installing *distribute*. What if people install this distribute-renamed-to-setuptools and start sending feedback to setuptools on that subject? What sense does it make?
Do you have any specific issues that Distribute fails but setuptools just works?
Me? No, I'm just echoing feedback I've found on the distutils, distribute and setuptools mailing lists.
I think it's the easiest way of providing better software to users.
That's all fine and dandy, but it shouldn't be done by telling users that distribute is setuptools. It's not.
comment:7 Changed 15 years ago by akitada@…
Yes and no. Distribute is a fork exposing a setuptools module, but you know what when you're installing *distribute*. What if people install this distribute-renamed-to-setuptools and start sending feedback to setuptools on that subject? What sense does it make?
I checked with Tarek, who's the core developer of distirubute and the maintainer of Distribute itself. He said he watches setuptools bug queue so if sending feedback to setputools on distribute actually helpful.
Do you have any specific issues that Distribute fails but setuptools just works?
Me? No, I'm just echoing feedback I've found on the distutils, distribute and setuptools mailing lists.
Well, I think I can pick some of the issues in setuptools that's fixed on distribute, if you like.
I think it's the easiest way of providing better software to users.
That's all fine and dandy, but it shouldn't be done by telling users that distribute is setuptools. It's not.
I understand your concern, but I still think this would makes users happier. Apparently I'm not the only who think it's better. This strategy is actually what Debian and Gentoo do for their package. (Ubuntu will be soon)
- http://packages.gentoo.org/package/dev-python/setuptools
- http://packages.debian.org/sid/python-setuptools
I'd like to hear from setuptools/distribute MacPorts port maintainers on this.
comment:8 Changed 15 years ago by akitada@…
Port: | py26-distribute py-setuptools py25-setuptools py26-distribute added |
---|
comment:9 Changed 15 years ago by jmroot (Joshua Root)
Cc: | mcalhoun@… stechert@… added |
---|---|
Owner: | changed from mcalhoun@… to jmr@… |
Port: | py25-distribute py26-setuptools added; py-setuptools removed |
Status: | new → assigned |
In a couple days, if nobody raises a good objection, I'm going to change all py25 and py26 dependencies on setuptools to distribute, and make the corresponding setuptools ports replaced_by distribute.
comment:10 Changed 15 years ago by jmroot (Joshua Root)
Keywords: | setuptools distribute removed |
---|---|
Resolution: | → fixed |
Status: | assigned → closed |
Summary: | 'distribute' under the name of 'setuptools' → replace setuptools with distribute |
If I understand what you're suggesting here, why would we not just make setuptools replaced_by distribute?