Re: [Docutils-users] docutils sometimes contains roman

[David G. <go...@py...>]

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 10:35, Alan G Isaac <ai...@am...> wrote:
>> Someone wrote:
>>> I think docutils should never include roman but require it as a dependency.
>
> On 3/23/2010 7:41 AM, Guenter Milde wrote:
>> Agreed. This would also make the setup.py file simpler.
>
> This is going to be a nasty shock to many new users,
> especially Windows users.

Why? Please explain (I don't understand what you're saying).

> roman.py is released under
> http://www.python.org/2.1.1/license.html
> Remind me why it cannot just be put in docutils?
> Is it policy that all of docutils be "public domain"
> (whatever that exactly means), so that even the PSF
> license is unacceptable?

roman.py is distributed with Docutils.

It is not part of the docutils package because

- it is a 3rd-party module (a dependency)
- I thought it should be separate and generally available (as "import
roman", not buried as "import docutils.roman")
- it is released under different terms from the rest of Docutils, so
physically separating it makes sense

An indeed, as was stated earlier, when I first wrote setup.py to
conditionally install roman.py, there was no built-in dependency
mechanism. If such a mechanism exists now (for all supported versions
of Python!), then we can use it. Does it?

Anyone interested in improving the situation, please do the legwork.

-- 
David Goodger <http://python.net/~goodger>