Whow sorry, Ignore my precedent mail, i missed the end of that email., i do not know why. Blame my eyes or thunderbird :/
> PEP 376 comes with a set of tools that will allow you to > install/uninstall distributions > in an arbitrary site-packages folder, and play with them. So it > basically makes almost no > differences for tools like zc.buildout-the-package-manager that is > tweaking sys.path in > the generated scripts. Great (really) :) Entry points are working as well on those non standard places also, aren't they? > I guess the simplest way will be to make the "eggs" directory a > regular site-package > like folder. It will even simplify the scripts because you will not > have to add one entry per eggs > there as it is today. I don't think it is a really good idea because you will not have isolation at project level. If you have A, B, C in this alternative site-packages, it would mean that A, B, and C are importable. But when i install something with "eggs=A C", i want that my pythonpath contains A and C but no B.I think the buildout way to do that actually is not that bad :) > What could be awesome is to see a branch of zc.buildout built against > distribute 0.7 Indeed. I ll rework the minitage recipes also to use pip and prepare work for distribute on a branch as soon a possible, i hope next we. > when it starts to be usable, to experiment this. > > zc.buildout is a package manager, so it makes it one of the target use > case for PEP 376 > and other changes we will provide in distribute. > How about trying to make a mirror of pypi packages rebuilt in the distribute format. That will prevent the overhead for users to contact the maintainer in case or breakage, to the maintainer to have to repackage its already packaged things, and also for the user to have problems installing 'foo' even it is a very simple package that we could just provide a rebuilt version to him. I think about that mainly for distributions packaged only as eggs (in the actual format). We could maybe extract this list of packages with no sdist (not that much i think and the only one i know is plomino) and repackage them. That's very low priority, but it can be useful and one more other step which will make the transition as transparent as possible. So mainly because i did not find time yet to test, and i will, my only concern WHICH MAY BE UNFOUNDED is on namespaces conflicts between setuptools and distribute. For me, the first one loaded module wins. And, it's low priority any way i think as a patch may by easy to do. Just one thing to borrow from the precedent mail would be to make one sentence on the PEP to write in rock that we can make installation elsewhere that in standard place for both python code & metadata. -- Cordialement, KiOrKY GPG Key FingerPrint: 0x1A1194B7681112AF
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
