Jim Fulton wrote: > Ian Bicking wrote: >> Jim Fulton wrote: >> > ... >>>> lib/python2.4/ is for packages. >>> >>> >>> Minor note: this needs to be flexible. I'd be more inclined to go >>> with something shallower and simpler, like just "lib", >> >> >> Why? Top-level packages aren't portable, since .pyc files aren't >> portable. Eggs are portable, since they contain the Python version. > > I have no idea what you are saying or how it relates to whether or not > packages go in lib/python2.4 or lib.
lib/foo/__init__.pyc is a file that is specific to a version of Python. lib/python2.4/foo/__init__.pyc removes any possibility of conflict. Though I suppose it is arguable that a working environment should only support one major version of Python. >>> This brings me to the topic of configuration. Today, I write wrapper >>> scripts "by hand", I may have some application like Zope, or ZEO >>> or our test runner that is implemented by a an entry point in a module. >>> Then there's a wrapper script that imports the module and calls the >>> entry point. >>> The wrapper script is written (manually or with some custom installation >>> script) to include the path to be used and configuration data, >>> which may be the location of a configuration file. I really like >>> the fact that easy_install will generate wrapper scripts for me, but >>> I really need more control over how these scripts are generated to >>> include *both* path and configuration information. >> >> >> I'm not sure what to think of this. I don't think of it as a script. >> It's like a specific invocation of the script. A shell script. Maybe >> we can improve on shell scripts, but I think it's a different idea >> than the script alone. > > What "it" are you talking about? This script+config invocation. -- Ian Bicking | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://blog.ianbicking.org _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
