On Mar 24, 2008, at 3:26 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
Sharing the system python is hugely problematic on a unix box which
actually *uses* python for its own tools: the application is not
safe
from additions / updates / removeals of the packages in
/usr/lib/python2.x/site-packages done to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Sure, but what is precisely the semantics of uninstallation, in
terms of changes to the system state?
I think any model where uninstallation is merely the removal
of files is too limited to be practical.
The distutils only
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Oh, and application installation is (should be) completely different.
On Windows, applications should probably be bundled with their own
Python interpreter, a la py2exe. On Unix/Linux, I don't know what the
standard is, so
M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
On 2008-03-21 22:21, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
At 08:06 PM 3/21/2008 +0100, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
I guess the only way to support all of these variants is
to use a filesystem based approach, e.g. by placing a file
with a special extension into some dir on sys.path.
The
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Essentially, one would have to contribute patches to all the
distributions (we care about, at least), and then nag the respective
maintainers to include these patches.
Not true. You just need to make sure that setup.py install creates
that database. With the
So, after having some time to absorb the Python-Dev threads about
setuptools, bootstrap, and all the rest, I think I see an opportunity
to let people route around the damage of eggs, while still making
it possible for the people who want to use easy_install or to put
dependencies in their
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
Questions, comments... volunteers? :)
This makes a lot of sense. I don't really have anything to add in terms
of implementation, but I wonder if we can learn something from how apt
or rpms or ports work, and how other programming languages (Ruby gems?)
solve this.
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
... if tools exist and are distributed for such a [PEP 262] database,
and *everybody* agrees to use it as an officially-blessed standard,
then it should be possible for setuptools to co-exist with that
framework, and we're all happy campers.
I like this idea and the 3
Phillip J. Eby schrieb:
Questions, comments... volunteers? :)
I've yet to read the monster package utils thread so I can't comment on
it. However I like to draw some attention to my PEP 370
http://python.org/dev/peps/pep-0370/. It's about a site packages
directory in the users home directory.
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 09:47:46AM -0400, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
Questions, comments... volunteers? :)
Sounds good, having a PEP626-style install database seems worthwile.
Definately if it will enable setuptools to install just like distutils
for a install.
Here some notes from my Debian
10 matches
Mail list logo
