Patches item #1298835, was opened at 2005-09-22 17:12 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by loewis You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=305470&aid=1298835&group_id=5470
Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: Library (Lib) Group: Python 2.4 >Status: Open >Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Rich Burridge (richburridge) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: vendor-packages directory. Initial Comment: Python needs a .../python2.x.y/vendor-packages directory for vendor supplied Python files. See: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2005-September/300029.html for the full reasoning behind this request. I also approached Guido w.r.t. this. Here's his reply. Subject: Re: Python vendor-packages directory in a future Python release? Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 19:48:40 -0700 From: Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> Reply-To: Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> To: Rich Burridge <Rich.Burridge at Sun.COM> References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I think that's a reasonable request. (In the mean time, I think that using site-packages is fine as an interim solution.) I suggest that you use the SourceForge patch manager for the Python project to upload your patch, and then post to python-dev. You may be asked to review 5 other patches in order to have someone look at your favorite patch. --Guido ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: Martin v. Löwis (loewis) Date: 2006-11-29 22:05 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=21627 Originator: NO Guido van Rossum suggests a vendor-packages directory in http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-November/070063.html I'm reopening the patch to encourage further review. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Rich Burridge (richburridge) Date: 2005-09-29 16:47 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=511506 A good alternative solution to this problem was given on the python-devel mailing list. See: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-September/056697.html http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-September/056699.html The architectural commitee have approved this solution, so I'm closing this bug as "Invalid". If there'd been a "Withdrawn" resolution, I'd have closed it that way instead. Perhaps that's what Deleted is supposed to do. Feel free to tweak if I've selected the wrong closure. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Terry J. Reedy (tjreedy) Date: 2005-09-24 01:49 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=593130 The reason for this patch given in the referred-to post is: "We have been told that this directory is inappropriate for vendor supplied packages, just as "site_perl" is inappropriate for Perl. With Perl, vendor supplied packages go under "vendor_perl". " where 'this directory' is site-packages, which works fine. The python-dev thread subequent to this posting starts with http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005- September/056682.html A subsequent post http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005- September/056696.html clarifies that 'vendor supplied packages' here means packages installed by the system/OS vendor. Disconnected (in the pipermail archives) pieces of the thread start here http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005- September/056697.html and here http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005- September/056702.html This last suggests that this proposal is on hold while a .pth solution is explored. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=305470&aid=1298835&group_id=5470 _______________________________________________ Patches mailing list Patches@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/patches
