Message373633
> A PEP may be a good idea, but I do think the change doesn't have a
> particularly large magnitude. Anyone using setuptools or pip has
> already been getting setuptools' monkey-patched version of distutils
> for ages now, and soon they will be getting setuptools' vendored
> version. The documentation already indicates that distutils is at
> least soft-deprecated in favor of setuptools and we've already been
> directing issues and PRs to setuptools instead of distutils.
I don't think it's a good idea to replace bad habits from distutils with bad habits in setuptools._distutils. And this is exactly what you get with pointing directly to setuptools.
While splitting out distutils to a separate package in a Linux distro, I found some creative usages at runtime of a package (see my lightning talk at the language summit 2018, and [1]). From my point of view, CPython should provide documentation how to forward-port these issues without using setuptools._distutils.
Currently setuptools only has one component (pkg_resources, [2]) which is used at runtime. I dislike it if more than that is used at runtime of a package.
[1] https://mail.python.org/archives/list/distutils-sig@python.org/thread/74WZ7D3ARF7B3N6MAV2JBV3DW6TRHFIV/
[2] https://github.com/pypa/setuptools/issues/863 |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2020-07-14 09:39:02 | doko | set | recipients:
+ doko, brett.cannon, paul.moore, jaraco, ncoghlan, christian.heimes, ned.deily, eric.araujo, lukasz.langa, steve.dower, dstufft, p-ganssle, pablogsal |
2020-07-14 09:39:02 | doko | set | messageid: <1594719542.34.0.71010976477.issue41282@roundup.psfhosted.org> |
2020-07-14 09:39:02 | doko | link | issue41282 messages |
2020-07-14 09:39:01 | doko | create | |
|