Ian Bicking wrote:
> Jim Fulton wrote:
>
>> I seem to remember a threat from from Phillip to make a proposal
>> for installing script-specific ,pth files with scripts, but I don't
>> think I every saw anything. Have I missed anything? If so, what? :)
>> If not, I'll probably write something myself and share it.
>
>
> workingenv (http://svn.colorstudy.com/home/ianb/workingenv) doesn't use
> .pth files, but does put in script-specific paths.
As I understand it, it is really putting in environment-specific paths.
I think I want script-specific paths.
> As I note in my previous email ("setuptools: hardcoding the path in a
> script and site.py"), I think this would probably be cleanest to do
> through a new installation option, that could also be placed into
> distutils.cfg. Right now what workingenv does is very specific to
> workingenv, and doesn't work off any public setuptools API.
I have an intuition that we're thinking about this incorrectly.
We seem to be going through a lot of effort to fake out something,
athough I'm not sure what. I have a growing suspiction that
the traditional model of a large namespace of modules
that is used by many applications serves simple scripting very well
but doessn't work well for applications.
I think this is an area where more prototyping is warrented, at
least for my needs. I'll let y'all know what, if anything I come up
with.
Jim
--
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered!
CTO (540) 361-1714 http://www.python.org
Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org
_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
