Chris Withers wrote:
>> You would be wrong, as you would know if you had tried running the
>> effbot's packages inside an eggified environment:  he is actively
>> hostile to changes which would make this all go away, which leaves us
>> with the necessity of forking his release.

I don't believe this to be the case, so I dropped Fred a mail.

Here's his response:

Fredrik Lundh wrote:
 > Hi Chris, thanks for the heads up.
 > Not sure what's going on here; PIL is traditionally installed in
 > site-packages/PIL so that everything is available as "from PIL import
 > ...", but with a pth file that adds that directory to the path so that
 > pre-package code still works (there are tons of such code out there).
 > It looks like the file achieves this as follows:
 >         extra_path = "PIL",
 >         package_dir={"": "PIL"},
 >         packages=[""],
 > where extra_path creates the pth file, and the package_dir stuff makes
 > sure distutils installs things under PIL and not PIL/PIL.  Some quick
 > Googling indicates that setuptools' support for extra_path is spotty
 > (non-existent until 2006, limited since then), so maybe this is the
 > issue?
 > Could you persuade whoever's ranting about this to jump over to
 > image-sig and propose a patch that fixes whatever problem Plone is
 > having but preserves the old behaviour?

Is such a patch possible? If so, could someone do as Fred asks and do so 
while resisting the temptation to be rude and further alienate the 
maintainer of what is a fantastic package? (yeah, I know, rich coming 
from me...)



Simplistix - Content Management, Batch Processing & Python Consulting

Repoze-dev mailing list

Reply via email to