Hey, Zvezdan Petkovic wrote:
On Mar 11, 2009, at 10:29 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Since Jim says you're not missing something, I'm going to add to the Zope Framework Steering Group decisions that this is enough and we could clean up __init__.py's to this if we would want to.
So, let me try to understand the decision process here:
1. The extras_require is banned to enable building with regular distutils.
Huh? What does this have to do with regular distutils? That never was mentioned in the extra discussion as far as I know. Anyway, extras_requires isn't banned at all. http://docs.zope.org/zopeframework/steeringgroup/decisions.html We're careful about extras as they can make it harder to reason about package dependencies.
2. pkgutil is now banned which will prevent regular distutils from working properly.
What exactly do we want to achieve?
Who banned pkgutil? I recorded this: * In namespace package's ``__init__.py`` we have been using the following boilerplate code:: try: import pkg_resources pkg_resources.declare_namespace(__name__) except ImportError: import pkgutil __path__ = pkgutil.extend_path(__path__, __name__) Since ``setuptools`` is a dependency of our packages anyway, we can instead do the following:: __import__('pkg_resources').declare_namespace(__name__) Feel free to use that and also feel free to simplify existing ``__init__.py`` modules. Just make sure ``setuptools`` is a declared dependency of the package. I'm not very concerned with making regular distutils work myself; I don't really see the point as we're heavily committed to setuptools anyway as a project. Tres remarked that it might if we continued to write this. I don't quite see how that could be. People need setuptools installed anyway to be able to run the code in setup.py. To me, building with regular distutils is *not* interesting to the Zope Framework project at this stage. It just isn't capable enough and we can use our time a lot better than worry about that. Regards, Martijn