On Dec 22, 2004, at 6:49, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
On 21-dec-2004, at 23:42, has wrote:
Chris Barker wrote:
I originally came down on Has' side of this debate, but now think Bob has made the right choices, so I thought I'd add a couple comments.
First, I'm a little unclear on what exactly Has wants. Could you clarify?
Freedom, basically. It's easier to assemble a workflow by mixing and matching small, single-purpose components than to strip down a great big monolithic lump to get the pieces you want/need. If you're going to protect the end user from doing stupid things, that's great, but it should be done by the next layer up. Users who work at the top layer are protected; users who want/need to route around the 'dummy mode' restrictions can go in at the layer beneath. After all, it's the user's foot, and if they want to shoot holes in it in full knowledge of what they're doing then far be it for anyone or anything else to stand in their way.
<rant>
You obviously don't want it badly enough. Adding an option that will make the application not include stuff from site-packages is not much work, the patch is less that 100 lines (context-diff) and it took me less than half an hour to write it.
</rant>
You did write it incorrectly, though. You didn't make it imply --site-packages (non-working executables by default!), and you didn't check to see if it was compatible with Python 2.4. site.sitedirs, or anything equivalent, does not exist in Python >= 2.4. The former is easy to fix, but the latter is not. Additionally, the filter stack is stronger than "includes" so you certainly wouldn't be able to actually use it to do the use case that Has' fabricated.
Needless to say, this functionality won't be popping up in 0.1.7 :)
-bob
_______________________________________________ Pythonmac-SIG maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pythonmac-sig
