On May 15, 2011, at 11:57 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> http://pkgme.net/
>
>Which is rather less complete for Python packaging than stdeb and I'd prefer
>we don't recommend.
Perhaps, but I think it's a good project to contribute to if you want to make
package easier for people (not just for Pyt
Barry Warsaw wrote:
>On May 15, 2011, at 11:57 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
>>> http://pkgme.net/
>>
>>Which is rather less complete for Python packaging than stdeb and I'd
>prefer
>>we don't recommend.
>
>Perhaps, but I think it's a good project to contribute to if you want
>to make
>package ea
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 16:43, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> I think it's deeply unfortunate that the pkgme authors chose duplicate
> something for which there is already a reasonably complete solution rather
> than focus on areas where that was not the case or improving the existing
> solution.
ehm,
Sandro Tosi wrote:
>On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 16:43, Scott Kitterman
>wrote:
>> I think it's deeply unfortunate that the pkgme authors chose
>duplicate
>> something for which there is already a reasonably complete solution
>rather
>> than focus on areas where that was not the case or improving the
Sandro Tosi wrote:
>On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 16:43, Scott Kitterman
>wrote:
>> I think it's deeply unfortunate that the pkgme authors chose
>duplicate
>> something for which there is already a reasonably complete solution
>rather
>> than focus on areas where that was not the case or improving the
[Sandro Tosi, 2011-05-16]
> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 16:43, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > I think it's deeply unfortunate that the pkgme authors chose duplicate
> > something for which there is already a reasonably complete solution rather
> > than focus on areas where that was not the case or improvi
6 matches
Mail list logo
