Re: Thoughts on some stdlib modules

Robert Kern wrote:

>> (the Linux distributors know how to do this: look for good stuff that's
>> either actively maintained or simple and solid enough to live for a while,
>> make sure the licenses are good enough, bundle the latest and greatest
>> version, ship tested versions at regular intervals, update when necessary,
>> and pass bugs and patches upstream. why not use the same approach
>> for Python's standard distribution?)
>
> The reason they don't is because making a distribution like this is a royal pain in the ass. It
> makes no sense to make the Python standard distribution like this. Only insane people do this. I'm
> one of them.

with enough volunteers, and a distributed development environment, nobody
needs to be insane. if you try to channel everything through a small number of
CPython developers, everyone will loose their sanity, and the users will suffer.

> "Updating when necessary" is problematic and really requires proper package management. Python is
> not an OS and cannot control all of the little factors that make package management feasible for
> OS distributions to do.

"updating when necessary" means "adding new components to the standard library
when there are new stable releases available, and someone has time to run the test
suite and contact the upstream provider if necessary".

> What's more, once you *do* have proper package management on the platforms that you care about, it
> doesn't matter what is or isn't in the standard distribution.

which means that at the moment, the best way to get a Python module into the
hands of users is to 1) provide windows installers that are compatible with the
"official" distribution, and 2) make it easy for downstream providers to package
your stuff, and leave it to them to take care of the rest.

but if the library in the standard distribution doesn't really matter, it should be
stripped down to minimum, to avoid overloading the CPython maintainers.

</F>



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Thoughts on some stdlib modules
    ... > I'm not talking about things that absolutely have to be in the Python ... > with the standard distribution, *without* having to be relicensed, ... > (the Linux distributors know how to do this: ...
    (comp.lang.python)
  • Re: Tag Cloud revisited
    ... distribution, which would be a better representation of the data. ... Keep in mind you are trying to show which items are the most popular ... cartesian graph paper -- What I was originally trying to do was graph ... I suppose there is some merit to forcing the Standard Distribution ...
    (php.general)
  • Re: Thoughts on some stdlib modules
    ... I'm talking about things that *could* be bundled with the standard distribution, *without* having to be relicensed, or be forever maintained by the CPython developers. ... either actively maintained or simple and solid enough to live for a while, make sure the licenses are good enough, bundle the latest and greatest version, ship tested versions at regular intervals, update when necessary, and pass bugs and patches upstream. ... distribution --- python itself, the standard libraries, and the most commonly used Python packages, and so on. ...
    (comp.lang.python)
  • Re: Easiest firewall?
    ... If you want simple FreeSCO is the way to go. ... standard distribution to start from. ... If nothing else it's a good lesson in basic Linux networking & security. ...
    (Fedora)
  • Re: Perl Distribution
    ... > Subject: Perl Distribution ... > My question is not related to perl programing but about its ... > how do they decide which module to be added as standard distribution, ...
    (comp.lang.perl.misc)