zooko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I am skeptical that prorgammers are going to be willing to use a new > database format. They already have a database -- their filesystem -- > and they already have the tools to control it -- mv, rm, and > PYTHONPATH. Many of them already hate the existence the > "easy_instlal.pth" database file, and I don't see why a new database > file would be any different.
Moreover, many of us already have a database of *all* packages on the system, not just Python-language ones: the package database of our operating system. Adding another, parallel, database which needs separate maintenance, and only applies to Python packages, is not a step forward in such a situation. > They both agreed that it made perfect sense. I told one of them > about the alternate proposal to define a new database file to > contain a list of installed packages, and he sighed and rolled his > eyes and said "So they are planning to reinvent apt!". That's pretty much my reaction, too. -- \ "Contentment is a pearl of great price, and whosoever procures | `\ it at the expense of ten thousand desires makes a wise and | _o__) happy purchase." -- J. Balguy | Ben Finney _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
