M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
The much more common use case is that of wanting to have a base package
installation which optional add-ons that live in the same logical
package namespace.
The PEP provides a way to solve this use case by giving both developers
and users a standard at hand which they can follow without having to
rely on some non-standard helpers and across Python implementations.
My proposal tries to solve this without adding yet another .pth
file like mechanism - hopefully in the spirit of the original Python
package idea.
Okay, I need to issue a plea for a little help.
I think I kinda get what this PEP is about now, and as someone who wants
to ship a base package with several add-ons that live in the same
logical package namespace, I'm very interested.
However, despite trying to follow this thread *and* having tried to read
the PEP a couple of times, I still don't know how I'd go about doing this.
I did give some examples from what I'd be looking to do much earlier.
I'll ask again in the vague hope of you or someone else explaining
things to me like I'm a 5 year old - something I'm mentally equipped to
be well ;-)
In either of the proposals on the table, what code would I write and
where to have a base package with a set of add-on packages?
Simple examples would be greatly appreciated, and might bring things
into focus for some of the less mentally able bystanders - like myself!
cheers,
Chris
--
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting
- http://www.simplistix.co.uk
_______________________________________________
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
