At 03:42 PM 2/9/2007 -0500, Jim Fulton wrote: >This makes this approach uninteresting for buildout, which doesn't >write to site-packages or have any site-packages equivalent. > >It sound like it also violates the egg promise that you just have to >put the egg in sys.path for it to be useable. buildout relies on >this promise.
Well, the backward-compatibility mode is for making system packages like .rpm files, and the namespace package support for that is a hack to deal with the fact that such packaging tools don't like to have multiple .rpm's or whatever containing the same file (i.e. the namespace package's __init__.py). This would be an even more extreme hack, if we tried to support 'develop' mode for procrustean package_dirs setups. You do, however, make a good point regarding the egg promise. As far as I can see, then, there is no way to support crazy package_dirs in combination with namespace packages, without automatically creating a bunch of directories and __init__.py files, along with some other crazy hacks. So the idea is probably a dead duck. _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
