On Friday 22 August, Thomas Lockhart wrote: > For Linux RPM packaging, I'm inclined to break off omniORB's top-level > CORBA.py into a separate RPM to make this conflict manageable. Not sure > what to call the package; we currently have
That was my suggestion. I'm not so convinced it's a good idea now, though, since it will probably confuse people. [...] > Duncan suggested having omniORB/CORBA.py register itself as "CORBA" so > that only the first reference needs to have the "from omniORB". That > sounds interesting; should we move forward on that also? We *could* also > modify sys.path to expose omniORB/COS *only* if omniORB/CORBA.py is > loaded (eliminating omniORB.pth altogether). Comments? I didn't suggest that. James says that's what PyORBit does. Again, I think that's unnecessarily confusing. I think the best solution is probably to just miss out the top-level CORBA modules altogether, and tell people they need to set PYTHONPATH to a suitable location if they want import CORBA to still work. Cheers, Duncan. -- -- Duncan Grisby -- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- http://www.grisby.org -- _______________________________________________ pygtk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.daa.com.au/mailman/listinfo/pygtk Read the PyGTK FAQ: http://www.async.com.br/faq/pygtk/
