On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 6:12 AM, James Y Knight <f...@fuhm.net> wrote: > However, then you have to also consider python packages made up of multiple > distro packages -- like twisted or zope. Twisted includes some C extensions > in the core package. But then there are other twisted modules (installed > under a "twisted.foo" name) which do not include C extensions. If the base > twisted package is installed under a version-specific directory, then all of > the submodule packages need to also be installed under the same > version-specific directory (and thus built for all versions). > > In the past, it has proven somewhat tricky to coordinate which directory the > modules for package "foo" should be installed in, because you need to know > whether *any* of the related packages includes a native ".so" file, not just > the current package. > > The converse situation, where a base package did *not* get installed into a > version-specific directory because it includes no native code, but a > submodule *does* include a ".so" file, is even trickier.
I think there are two major ways to tackle this: - allow multiple versions of a .so file within a single directory (i.e Barry's current suggestion) - enhanced namespace packages, allowing a single package to be spread across multiple directories, some of which may be Python version specific (i.e. modifications to PEP 382 to support references to version-specific directories) I think a new PEP is definitely in order, especially to explain why enhancing PEP 382 to support saying "look over here for the .so files for this version" isn't a preferable approach. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ 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