[Python-Dev] PEP 3148 ready for pronouncement (original) (raw)

Jesse Noller jnoller at gmail.com
Wed May 26 14:25:08 CEST 2010

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 8:19 AM, Paul Moore <p.f.moore at gmail.com> wrote:

On 26 May 2010 11:56, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net> wrote:

On Wed, 26 May 2010 20:42:12 +1000 Steven D'Aprano <steve at pearwood.info> wrote:

I'm not saying that Python-Dev should bend over backwards to accommodate such people to the exclusion of all else, but these folks are stakeholders too, and their wants and needs are just as worthy as the wants and needs of those who prefer a more conservative approach to the standard library. Well, my "Sumo" proposal was a serious one. (not serious in that I would offer to give a hand, but in that I think it could help those people; also, wouldn't it be sensible for users in a corporate environment to share their efforts and produce something that can benefit all of them? it's the free software spirit after all) I'm not sure how a "Sumo" approach would work in practical terms, and this thread isn't really the place to discuss, but there's a couple of points I think are worth making: * For a "Sumo" distribution to make sense, some relatively substantial chunk of the standard library would need to be moved out to reside in the sumo distribution. Otherwise it's not really a "sumo", just a couple of modules that "nearly made it into the stdlib", at least for the near-to-medium term. I've yet to see any sort of consensus that python-dev is willing to undertake that decoupling work. (Which would include extracting the various tests, migrating bugs out of the pythion tracker, etc etc). * If the decoupled modules aren't simply being abandoned, python-dev needs to continue to commit to supporting them "in the wild" (i.e., on PyPI and in the sumo distribution). Otherwise we're just abandoning existing users and saying "support it yourself". I've seen no indication that python-dev members would expect to follow bug trackers for various decoupled modules - so in practice, this sounds more like abandonment than decoupling. Until a stdlib-decoupling proposal which takes these aspects into account is on the table, I'm afraid that suggesting there's a "Sumo distribution" style middle ground between stdlib and PyPI isn't really true... Paul.

The fat vs. thin stdlib was discussed on stdlib-sig some time ago (I am generally +1 to having a thin dist and a secondary "fatter" dist), however right now, it doesn't make sense packaging and dependency management is still a mess (but getting better), and there's a ton of other things to take into consideration, some of which has been iterated in this thread.

That being said, we've now evolved into meta-meta-meta-discussion - if people seriously want to discuss the fat vs. thin subject, it should probably go to stdlib-sig.

jesse

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list