Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 01:11:42 +0400 From: "Andrew Pantyukhin" <infofarmer@FreeBSD.org> To: "Alexander Botero-Lowry" <alexbl@freebsd.org> Cc: python@freebsd.org Subject: Re: setuptools status Message-ID: <cb5206420706101411qcdcc9ecpd7d0d07943d11c74@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20070610203735.CFB733B477@cherenkov.geekfire.com> References: <cb5206420706101035j2cb561f8p345a14e95f31090f@mail.gmail.com> <20070610203735.CFB733B477@cherenkov.geekfire.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 6/11/07, Alexander Botero-Lowry <alexbl@freebsd.org> wrote: > > Python modules are slowly moving from distutils > > to setuptools. I have no python experience, but > > I see that this causes serious and annoying > > problems for newer ports. > > Are you referring to the OSRELEASE problem, or are you referring to the > intra-port egg dependency problem? I'm referring to the general mess with all these eggs. For now I'm patching ports to revert back to distutils, but it's not completely compatible with setuptools. > > Is there someone willing to identify and attempt > > to solve the problems? > We have ok solutions for many of these problems; it's hard to do anything > better (or simply impossible) in some cases. In other cases the update to > Python 2.5 (which I started fixing on and miwi@ is helping out with) > includes considerably better support for setuptools. It's great to know that!
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?cb5206420706101411qcdcc9ecpd7d0d07943d11c74>