-->"Phillip" == Phillip J Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Phillip> This is a major advantage over developers who do not do this, Phillip> not only in developer effectivness, but also because a Phillip> developer who depends exclusively on a specific packaging Phillip> system will not have the same effective reach for their Phillip> offering, or conversely will require a greater investment of Phillip> effort to support various packaging systems. <coming to this a little late> So, this would seem to imply that installation of eggs is similar to using PEAR or CPAN? If so, from the perspective of a Debian user, this is a major disadvantage. I'm used to having a single framework that manages my packages and their dependency relationships, and it works well. Adding a language-specific mechanism simply causes problems, with stray files installed into directories "owned" by a .deb package, versions of CPAN/PEAR-installed packages drifting out of date with the interpreter and standard library, and just the cognitive load of needing to deal with something other than apt-get. My experiences with CPAN/PEAR packages have been universally bad, and I now try very, very hard to use nothing except apt/dpkg. I understand that from a Python-only perspective eggs might have a bunch of ease-of-use advantages, but from my point of view I'd suggest it's better that the developer (or Debian packager) takes the trouble to make it work with dpkg so all Debian users get to maintain the consistency they're used to. My 2c, etc, d -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
