4 ms·

Yes, setuptools is broken. Proposal: don't use setuptools! It's funny that the author doesn't make any mention of this, which is not new news: http://docs.pyth

Yes, setuptools is broken. Proposal: don't use setuptools! It's funny that the author doesn't make any mention of this, which is not new news: http://docs.python.org/dev/library/packaging.html http://docs.python.org/dev/library/packaging.html Maybe not every use case anyone ever proposed needs to be standardized.

varikin 14y ago
That isn't the takeaway I got. It was that Setuptools is broken, but so is pip and distutils2. Pip lost very worthwhile functionality that exists in setuptools, namely binary eggs.
- slurgfest 14y ago
  Binary eggs aren't a good reason to trash pip, which otherwise works great. He really didn't say how distutils2 was broken, just expressed some sort of prejudice against it.
  - masklinn 14y ago
    > aren't a good reason to trash pip Good thing that never happened then.
    - slurgfest 14y ago
      pip isn't broken just because it doesn't support a particular use case from setuptools.
      - masklinn 14y ago
        Again, it would be nice if you stopped making shit up on the spot, TFA didn't say anywhere that pip is "broken" or anything even remotely close to that.
- the_mitsuhiko 14y ago
  > That isn't the takeaway I got. It was that Setuptools is broken, but so is pip and distutils2. Pip lost very worthwhile functionality that exists in setuptools, namely binary eggs. The takeaway should be that it's very easy to miss usecases by accident when replacing tools with other tools.
tbatterii 14y ago
packaging hasn't been proven to be any better. It's just shiny and new. That recommendation is somewhat irresponsible.
- slurgfest 14y ago
  That isn't a recommendation, that is a module which was not mentioned at all in an article where it is directly relevant. It is standard; it is trying to fix the problem, rather than lambasting Python because setuptools is broken and you have prejudices against the solutions to the problem which are actually moving forward.
  - tbatterii 14y ago
    but they aren't finished with it yet. so why should it be recommended? that's irresponsible.
    - slurgfest 14y ago
      I never recommended anything, that is your fixation. What is really ridiculous is to flame about how there is fragmentation in Python packaging, and COMPLETELY IGNORE the ongoing efforts which have made progress in exactly that area. And if someone tries to mention this progress, call them irresponsible. That is ridiculous.
      - the_mitsuhiko 14y ago
        > What is really ridiculous is to flame about how there is fragmentation in Python packaging, and COMPLETELY IGNORE the ongoing efforts which have made progress in exactly that area. And if someone tries to mention this progress, call them irresponsible. That is ridiculous. It was pointed out in the past already that packaging/distutils2 is not yet implementing all functionality of setuptools. Right now I would not recommend using it personally. Then again, just my opinion.

varikin 14y ago

That isn't the takeaway I got. It was that Setuptools is broken, but so is pip and distutils2. Pip lost very worthwhile functionality that exists in setuptools, namely binary eggs.

slurgfest 14y ago
Binary eggs aren't a good reason to trash pip, which otherwise works great. He really didn't say how distutils2 was broken, just expressed some sort of prejudice against it.
- masklinn 14y ago
  > aren't a good reason to trash pip Good thing that never happened then.
  - slurgfest 14y ago
    pip isn't broken just because it doesn't support a particular use case from setuptools.
    - masklinn 14y ago
      Again, it would be nice if you stopped making shit up on the spot, TFA didn't say anywhere that pip is "broken" or anything even remotely close to that.
the_mitsuhiko 14y ago
> That isn't the takeaway I got. It was that Setuptools is broken, but so is pip and distutils2. Pip lost very worthwhile functionality that exists in setuptools, namely binary eggs. The takeaway should be that it's very easy to miss usecases by accident when replacing tools with other tools.

tbatterii 14y ago

packaging hasn't been proven to be any better. It's just shiny and new. That recommendation is somewhat irresponsible.

slurgfest 14y ago
That isn't a recommendation, that is a module which was not mentioned at all in an article where it is directly relevant. It is standard; it is trying to fix the problem, rather than lambasting Python because setuptools is broken and you have prejudices against the solutions to the problem which are actually moving forward.
- tbatterii 14y ago
  but they aren't finished with it yet. so why should it be recommended? that's irresponsible.
  - slurgfest 14y ago
    I never recommended anything, that is your fixation. What is really ridiculous is to flame about how there is fragmentation in Python packaging, and COMPLETELY IGNORE the ongoing efforts which have made progress in exactly that area. And if someone tries to mention this progress, call them irresponsible. That is ridiculous.
    - the_mitsuhiko 14y ago
      > What is really ridiculous is to flame about how there is fragmentation in Python packaging, and COMPLETELY IGNORE the ongoing efforts which have made progress in exactly that area. And if someone tries to mention this progress, call them irresponsible. That is ridiculous. It was pointed out in the past already that packaging/distutils2 is not yet implementing all functionality of setuptools. Right now I would not recommend using it personally. Then again, just my opinion.