On 26 November 2015 at 08:57, Barry Warsaw <barry at python.org> wrote:
> There's a lot to process in this thread, but as I see it, the issue breaks
> down to these questions:
>> * How should PEP 493 be implemented?
>> * What should the default be?
>> * How should PEP 493 be worded to express the right tone to redistributors?
>> Let me take on the implementation details here.
>> On Nov 24, 2015, at 04:04 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>>>I would still find having built-in support for the recommendations
>>in the Python stdlib a better approach
>> As would I.
For what its worth: a PEP telling distributors to patch the standard
library is really distasteful to me.
We've spent a long time trying to build close relations such that when
something doesn't work distributors can share their needs with us and
we can make Python out of the box be a good fit. This seems to fly in
the exact opposite direction: we're explicitly making it so that
Python builds on these vendor's platforms will not be the same as you
get by checking out the Python source code.
Ugh.
-Rob
--
Robert Collins <rbtcollins at hp.com>
Distinguished Technologist
HP Converged Cloud
