distribute vs setuptools

[Neal Becker]

On Thursday 08 October 2009, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> So I just read this piece of news on the distutils-sig list.  Here's a
> summary/background.
> 
> setuptools has become increasingly popular as a method of making python
> modules easier to package (by upstream), managing plugins, and getting
> version requirements right.  However, the setuptools author has been
> somewhat lackadaisical about maintaining the code, integrating bugfixes,
> etc.  Since the setuptools author hasn't wanted to pass the torch on to
> someone else, the project has forked.  Distribute-0.6 is the compatible
>  fork with multiple maintainers who are interested in preserving setuptools
>  compatibility in the 0.6 branch and making real (but API changing)
>  improvements in the 0.7 branch.
> 
> Due to the non-maintenance of setuptools, some other Linux distros have
> started shipping distribute-0.6 as their setuptools module.  Their plan is
>  to ship distribute-0.6 as setuptools and distribute-0.7 as distribute.  By
>  doing this, the consumers of setuptools don't have to change their package
>  (all the import statements) to use distribute instead of setuptools.  If
>  they didn't do this, the packages would need to be patched to use
>  distribute instead of setuptools.
> 
> The benefit of this is that they get a maintained piece of code with an
> upstream that is responsive to bug reports, patches, and takes distribution
> problems into consideration (even if they can't always do something about
> them in the 0.6 codebase).  The downsides are that the setuptools upstream
> is alive even if it isn't thriving and the setuptools maintainer could
>  throw a monkey into the works by releasing API breaking changes when he
>  does a new setuptools release.
> 
> Since I'm the current setuptools maintainer and have had issues trying to
> get bugs fixed in upstream setuptools before, I'm inclined to do this as
> well but the drawbacks are nothing to ignore.  So what do other people
>  think of our doing this as well?  If we don't do this, an alternative
>  might be to plan on packaging distribute0.6 and distribute0.7 parallel
>  installable. Then we can port packages to use distribute instead of
>  setuptools when its available and submit those patches to upstream
>  projects.
> 
> -Toshio
> 
> ----- Forwarded message from Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
>  <arfrever.fta at gmail.com> -----
> 
> Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 23:07:13 +0200
> From: Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <arfrever.fta at gmail.com>
> To: distutils-sig at python.org
> Subject: Re: [Distutils] Packaging Distribute
> X-BeenThere: distutils-sig at python.org
> 
> 2009-10-04 23:52:25 Sridhar Ratnakumar napisał(a):
> > On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 13:41:06 -0700, Tarek Ziadé <ziade.tarek at gmail.com>
> >
> > wrote:
> > > The other way would be to use Distribute instead of Setuptools for
> > > what the packaging system is calling "setuptools". That's pretty
> > > much what is happening in Gentoo (arch) and UHU-Linux (dev),
> > > right now
> >
> > Interesting. Gentoo uses distribute but retains the name 'setuptools'?
> 
> It's because Distribute 0.6.* installs setuptools.* modules.
> Distribute 0.7.* will be under name dev-python/distribute.
> 
> > Ah. But what if PJE releases setuptools with the *same* version number
> > 0.6.3? What would the gentoo folks do in order to get the new setuptools
> > release in their packaging system? Or did they make a decision of totally
> > dropping setuptools from their repository?
> 
> We could switch to back to Setuptools only if Setuptools became more
> maintained than Distribute.
> 

+1 on switch to distribute.  One drawback of setuptools is no uninstall.  From 
what I've heard, distribute is more likely to have this sooner.