Chris Withers wrote:
Lennart Regebro wrote:
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 09:59, Chris Withers <ch...@simplistix.co.uk>
wrote:
Saint Germain wrote:
I'm currently trying more or less the same thing by combining buildout
with virtualenv and pip.
This doesn't seem like a sane thing to do.
Sure it does. It's just not very useful in most cases. Buildout by
itself works fine to isolate the python installation from the stuff
installed.
Well, no, using a virtualenv to wrap a buildout is far from insane,
especially until Gary's work to make site-packages optionally excluded
from the search path lands!
However, the OP's recommended recipes appear to just use buildout to
drive virtualenv, ignoring all of buildout's python package management.
That seems insane...
I wrote the rjm.recipe.venv recipe. All it does is turn the buildout root
directory into a virtualenv, so you can use virtualenv to wrap the buildout
w/o having to take an extra step, or worry about whether or not one of your
downstream users has forgotten to do so.
That being said, I also like the idea of gp.recipe.pip. I'll admit that it
_is_ a bit insane. But the pip/virtualenv combination fits my brain better
than buildout. I don't much care for zc.recipe.egg, I prefer virtualenv's
approach of mimicking Python's package management mechanisms, so that I don't
have to context switch between my sandboxed environments and the way Python
works at the system level. gp.recipe.pip is nowhere near as battle-hardened
as zc.recipe.egg, nor does it support every use case that zc.recipe.egg
supports, but I can certainly understand the motivation.
-r
_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
