> I've maybe missed some point, but doesn't the PEP requires > coordination so that *.pkg files have different names in each portion, > and the same if one want to provide a non empty __init__.py.
To some degree, coordination is necessary. However, the PEP recommends that you use <distribution>.pkg as the name; IMO, that should be sufficient (at least when all competing pacakges are on PyPI, which requires unique distribution names). >> Allowing each system package to contain its own .pkg or .nsp or >> whatever files, on the other hand, allows each system package to be >> built independently, without conflict between contents (i.e., having >> the same file), and without requiring a special pseudo-package to >> contain the additional file. > > As said above, provided some conventions are respected... Yes, however, these are easy to achieve. If a conflict is ever encountered, the author of the package violating the convention is asked to follow it, and he usually will - or a fork will occur. > Another point: I don't > like .pth, .pkg files. Isn't this pep an opportunity to at least unify > them? I don't see this as a problem. I can add it to the discussion section if you want. Regards, Martin -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
