[extracted from pylons-discuss]
> >> I hate to pass the buck, but this is Python's fault for not having
> >> reliable package management built in. There's nothing Pylons can do
> >> about it except switch to another programming language.
> > [SNIP]
>
> Without Setuptools,
> Pylons and TurboGears couldn't exist, and Zope and Twisted
> would not have been able to split themselves into several packages.
> People coming to Python from Perl and Ruby expect to be able to just
> run a command to download and install a package. That problem was
> solved ten years ago, so why does Python still not have it standard?
>
> If Setuptools and Virtualenv or the equivalent were built into Python,
> you could trust that every computer that has successfully installed
> Python can install packages and make virtual environments the same
> way..
>
> That would eliminate 2/3 of the problems users have when
> installing Pylons, and the subsequent need to explain the problems and
> workarounds in the installation docs. At
> work people say, "Half the trouble of Pylons is installing it", and I
> often have to help them install it in person because otherwise they
> get stuck at some error message and have no idea what to do.
>
Agreed. I would even move ipython (or something like it) to core.
Of course, even Setuptools has a long way to go in some areas. (Installation
Rollback, for one.)
Python is about "batteries included", and these are major "batteries" in most
modern environments.
A CPAN like "in-house hosted" archive would nice, too. This way, modules have
a better chance of outliving the original author's interest/commitment in
paying for, possibly non-trivial, web hosting.
I'm sure these issues has been discussed to death, but I wonder what the larger
Python community thinks.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
