On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Sean Farley <sean at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> I disagree with this completely. There's a tendency to think of everything >> python as a package -- this is NOT a package. It has no __init__.py, it has >> no __all__, it has no submodules, and it doesn't need any of that. It >> simply does a one-off task -- it's bits of code to be used in a script. >> Putting this sort of code in site-packages is what makes site-packages the >> nightmare of ignored dependencies and overlapping versions it is today. >> >> If you want to make it into a package, you're welcome to do so. With that >> includes registration with the cheeseshop to make sure the namespace is >> unique, placing the single file within a folder that includes an __init__ >> (and then likely just gets imported within that __init__), writing a >> setup.py, etc etc. It's just complete overkill. > > > Then why put it in bin/python at all? Just drop the .py extension and put > it in bin (with a 'correct' [whatever that may be] python hashbang)? > I am for this, although I do not give a crap what the extension is. Matt > Sean > -- What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments lead. -- Norbert Wiener -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20110725/6ce3acda/attachment.html>
