Stef Mientki a écrit : > Adam Atlas wrote: > >> Ah... heh, sorry, I misread your message as "a much more convenient >> way" rather than "much more than a convenient way". Anyway, I >> understand that, and I do indeed find setuptools useful and use it on >> a regular basis. >> >> But my other points still stand. This would be a moot point if >> setuptools were part of the standard library, but it's not, and I >> don't see why people should have to bother installing it if they >> simply want to try a small package. Look at Beautiful Soup, for >> example. It's distributed as a single .py file, and that's great. With >> most modules, all I want to do is download them and plop them into my >> project directory. You can always copy it into site-packages if you >> want to access it globally, and you can always unzip it if you need to >> see the source. >> >> So I *will* retract my statement that this could be an "alternative" >> to eggs -- ideally, it would be an addition, since it doesn't break >> compatibility at all. You could download an egg and rename it to .pyc, >> and import it like any other module, and at any point later, you could >> rename it back to .egg and use setuptools to install it if you wish. >> > Good point to make these things much easier! > > But possibly I'm the only Windows user here,
I don't think so. > as I still find these talks all very difficult to understand, > and I really don't understand why all this complexity is necessary, > setuptools ? eggs ? zips ? pythonpaths ? > > As a normal Windows user, > I'm used to run an install file, > and hit just 1 button. As a normal *n*x user, I'm used to run a single command line. Don't even have to hit a button !-) > But I guess the needed complexity is all thanks to NIX ;-) FUD. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
