There's a hitchhiker's guide to packaging that covers all aspects of the package lifecycle very well: http://guide.python-distribute.org/
In fact I'm a bit annoyed at seeing this new effort reuse the name, because the hitchhiker's guide to packaging has great content and is getting some well-deserved name recognition. The official Python wiki is another good place to learn and write guides about the ecosystem.
Re:Hitchhiker's Guide to Python
by kenneth_reitz on Friday December 30, 2011 @10:55AM
(#3407982)
The names are both equally original (e.g. stolen from Douglas Adams).
The packaging guide is fantastic, and will be heavily linked to.
Re:Hitchhiker's Guide to Python
by perfunctory on Friday December 30, 2011 @02:54AM
(#3406992)
I'd rather like to see the target slow down.
Re:Hitchhiker's Guide to Python
by perfunctory on Friday December 30, 2011 @03:25AM
(#3407047)
What's wrong with my comment? Yes, python has a very confusing landscape of package management tools and practices, and indeed it's a quickly moving target. But documenting this mess is not the best solution because than the very documentation becomes a quickly moving target. Package management is not the most difficult problem in the world, is it. The python community should just be a little bolder about breaking backward compatibility.
If your original comment was downvoted (I did not vote one way or another), it was probably because it contributed little. Saying you'd "like to see" something without saying why (as in your parent comment) doesn't tend to generate discussion.
In almost any language community there is usually an established set of best practices and tools but this can be a quickly moving target, which leaves behind a confusing array of deprecated tools and frameworks that were once the community's preferred way of doing things. Having a running document that keeps everyone up to date helps immensely with adoption. I'd love to see something similar for other communities.