Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed5.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3dcbbd82-0f95-4e00-94ee-26d6d5dd1812@c16g2000pre.googlegroups.com>
References: <jaqq8c$ang$1@reader1.panix.com> <3dcbbd82-0f95-4e00-94ee-26d6d5dd1812@c16g2000pre.googlegroups.com>
From: Matt Joiner <anacrolix@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2011 23:54:24 +1100
Subject: Re: sick of distribute, setup, and all the rest...
To: rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: python-list@python.org
Precedence: list
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Message-ID: <mailman.3073.1322398489.27778.python-list@python.org>
Lines: 60
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6
Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.python:16286

Agreed. I recently gave Haskell a go, and it was remarkable how
similar the package management is to Python's.

How well does the new "packaging" (set for release in Python 3.3?)
module deal with the problems?

With a better package management system, the half of the standard
library that nobody uses can be unceremoniously dumped, and their more
recent upstream versions used correctly. Even distutils itself is
"obsolete", the first recommendation people give is to replace it with
distribute and/or pip.

On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 4:28 AM, rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 6:40=C2=A0pm, kj <no.em...@please.post> wrote:
>> it's an all-out disgrace.
>>
>> when is python going to get a decent module distribution system???
>>
>> and don't tell me to do it myself: it's clear that the sorry
>> situation we have now is precisely that too many programmers without
>> the requisite expertise or policy-making authority have decided to
>> pitch in. =C2=A0This is something for GvR and his top Python core librar=
y
>> team to do, because the problems are as much policy and institutional
>> ones as they are technical (programming) ones.
>
> I second this.
>
> The only thing I disagree about is that GvR is 'top' enough to handle
> this.
> For example on my debian box my python system is a mishmash of debian-
> apt-packages,
> eggs, and hand-installed stuff. =C2=A0[I believe I tried something like
> pypi and did not succeed -- dont exactly remember]
> So for systems like mine python and apt need to talk courteously to
> each other -- not possible for the likes of u&me; hard even for the
> likes of GvR.
>
> Frankly, this is not great but could be much worse. =C2=A0Some years ago
> when I worked with Ruby on Rails the rails that came from debian was
> an travesty. =C2=A0After some suffering I gathered that the optimal
> diplomacy was:
> - ruby from apt
> - gem hand installed
> - rails from gem
>
> While Ive never seen anything as ridiculous as the debian-rails in the
> python world, its still always a hobson choice: =C2=A0use a deb package
> that will cleanly install, deinstall, upgrade etc but is out of date
> or use a fresh and shiny egg that messes up the system.
>
> Haskell's cabal/hackage system is just as much a mess
> http://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/f3lh5/haskells_own_dll_hell/
>
> In short the mess arises from this that each of these languages comes
> up with its own package management system, neglecting the fact that
> the language invariably exists in a larger ecosystem
> --
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>