Matthias Klose <d...@debian.org> added the comment:
> 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-...@python.org/thread/74WZ7D3ARF7B3N6MAV2JBV3DW6TRHFIV/ [2] https://github.com/pypa/setuptools/issues/863 ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue41282> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
