On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Ronny Pfannschmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 13:03 +0000, Chris Withers wrote: >> Ronny Pfannschmidt wrote: >> > i recently noticed that shipping a package like 'foo.bar' without also >> > shipping 'foo' seems to work fine in distutils. >> > >> > since that would be nice way to ship packages within a namespace i want >> > to sugest specifying the fact that it works and to clarify how it works. >> >> There's already for PEP for namespace packages... > > Yes, but that only deals with package namespacing in terms of the import > system, not a single word about how things get installed within > namespaces. > > The current way is to ship dozens of virtually empty __init__.py files > in the superpackages > (i.e. only the call to pkgutil in order to extend __path__) > > I consider that unfortunate and undesirable. > > I see a clear need to add convient names at the package level and the > current way to deal with namespaces cant handle that. > > The ability to install subpackages while ignoring superpackages is a way > to archieve that, cause nothing will overwrite the superpackages > __init__.py. > So it may be subject to usefull additions beyond the mere __path__ > extension,
I think the namespace PEP lacks of some usage examples, for these use case: how do I define code in foo.bar.baz, and how do I describe it so Distutils installs it I am cc'ing Martin (he's not in distutils-sig IIRC) Regards Tarek _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
