Greg Ewing writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree. I find hiding
> directories
> > which contain executable code extremely non-obvious.
>
> I'm worried by this too. I don't like the idea of putting
> large and important things in hidden d
Steve Holden wrote:
If you want it visible, make a visible symbolic link!
I have to know it's there first. The idea of an installer
deliberately hiding stuff from me in a very unconventional
and non-obvious way makes me uncomfortable.
--
Greg
___
Py
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree. I find hiding directories
> which contain executable code extremely non-obvious.
I'm worried by this too. I don't like the idea of putting
large and important things in hidden directories automatically
without being tol
>> /usr/.local to /usr/local? If not, then why prefer ~/.local to ~/local?
Alec> Because unlike a home directory, users don't frequently perform
Alec> directory listings or tab completion of /usr/. For a frequently
Alec> used personal directory one wants the minimum of noise.
I
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 7:37 AM, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you want it visible, make a visible symbolic link!
Note that the point is moot, since I'm going to accept Christian's
PEP, i.e. ~/.local, but this argument "you can make it visible
yourself" is bogus. The point of visibi
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 8:11 AM, Alec Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Python would not be unique. Mozilla/Firefox does exactly this, putting
> per-user plugins in ~/.mozilla.
Note that this is moot since I'm going to accept the PEP as it stands
(i.e. ~/.local) but I want to point out somethin
On Fri, 02 May 2008 00:03:24 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 11:45 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >I like this, except one issue: I really don't like the .local
> >directory. I don't see any compelling reason why this needs to be
> >~/.local/lib/ -- IMO it should just be ~/lib/. There's no nee
> > /usr/.local to /usr/local? If not, then why prefer ~/.local to ~/local?
>
> Because unlike a home directory, users don't frequently perform
> directory listings or tab completion of /usr/. For a frequently used
> personal directory one wants the minimum of noise.
Glad someone around here kn
2008/5/7 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Alec> FWIW my vote is for ~/.python. ~/.local comes in a distant second
> Alec> due to non-obviousness and ~/Python is several light years beyond
> Alec> that.
>
> I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree. I find hiding directories
> which c
Alec> FWIW my vote is for ~/.python. ~/.local comes in a distant second
Alec> due to non-obviousness and ~/Python is several light years beyond
Alec> that.
I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree. I find hiding directories
which contain executable code extremely non-obvious.
Alec Thomas wrote:
FWIW my vote is for ~/.python. ~/.local comes in a distant second due
to non-obviousness and ~/Python is several light years beyond that.
I think if the obviousness (or lack thereof) of the chosen directory
name ever really matters to anyone, we did it wrong. After all, unle
2008/5/6 Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On May 1, 2008, at 8:03 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Am I the only guy who finds software that insists on visible, fixed files
> in my home directory rude? vmware, for example, wants a "~/vmware"
> directory, but pretty much every other application
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On May 1, 2008, at 8:03 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am I the only guy who finds software that insists on visible, fixed
files in my home directory rude? vmware, for example, wants a "~/
vmware" directory, but pretty much every other application
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 10:26 PM, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> This is a reminder that the LAST planned alpha releases of Python 2.6 and
> 3.0 are scheduled for next Wednesday, 07-May-2008. Please be diligent over
> the next week so
On 2008-05-04 21:57, Christian Heimes wrote:
M.-A. Lemburg schrieb:
PYTHONPATH is lacking one feature which is important for lots of
packages and setuptools. The directories in PYTHONPATH are just added to
sys.path. But setuptools require a site package directory. Maybe a new
env var PYTHONSITEP
M.-A. Lemburg schrieb:
>> PYTHONPATH is lacking one feature which is important for lots of
>> packages and setuptools. The directories in PYTHONPATH are just added to
>> sys.path. But setuptools require a site package directory. Maybe a new
>> env var PYTHONSITEPATH could solve the problem.
>
> We
On 2008-05-04 18:14, Christian Heimes wrote:
First, Skip, I *only* care about the default behavior. There's already
a way to do it differently: PYTHONPATH. So, Fred, I think what you're
arguing for is to drop this feature entirely. Or is there some other
use for a new way to allow users to exp
Nick Coghlan schrieb:
> - for experienced users (Barry, skip, etc) that want ~/.local to be more
> easily accessible, creating a visible ~/local symlink is an utterly
> trivial exercise.
Our you can set the environment variable PYTHONUSERBASE to $HOME.
PYTHONUSERBASE is the root directory for user
> First, Skip, I *only* care about the default behavior. There's already
> a way to do it differently: PYTHONPATH. So, Fred, I think what you're
> arguing for is to drop this feature entirely. Or is there some other
> use for a new way to allow users to explicitly add something to
> sys.path, as
On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 9:58 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...snip...
> As I've said a dozen times in this thread already, the feature I'd like to
> get from a per-user installation location is that 'setup.py install', or at
> least some completely canonical distutils incantation, should work, by
glyph> As I've said a dozen times in this thread already, the feature
glyph> I'd like to get from a per-user installation location is that
glyph> 'setup.py install', or at least some completely canonical
glyph> distutils incantation, should work, by default, for non-root
glyph>
On 3 May, 11:34 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 3, 2008, at 7:51 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fred asked for a --prefix flag (which is what I was voting on). I
don't
really care what you do by default as long as you give me a way to do
it
differently.
What's most interesting (to me) i
On Fri, May 02, 2008, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On May 2, 2008, at 1:48 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>In the long term, if everyone followed suit on
>>~/.local, that would be great. But I don't want a ~/Python, ~/Java,
>>~/Ruby, ~/PHP, ~/Perl, ~/OCaml and ~/Erlang and a $PATH as long as
>>m
Fred Drake wrote:
On May 3, 2008, at 7:51 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fred asked for a --prefix flag (which is what I was voting on). I don't
really care what you do by default as long as you give me a way to do it
differently.
What's most interesting (to me) is that no one's commented on my
On May 3, 2008, at 7:51 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fred asked for a --prefix flag (which is what I was voting on). I
don't
really care what you do by default as long as you give me a way to
do it
differently.
What's most interesting (to me) is that no one's commented on my note
that my
Barry Warsaw wrote:
On May 3, 2008, at 5:05 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
- for experienced users (Barry, skip, etc) that want ~/.local to be
more easily accessible, creating a visible ~/local symlink is an
utterly trivial exercise.
Hey Nick, I agree with everything above, except that I'd probably
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On May 3, 2008, at 5:05 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
The major reasons why I think staying out of people's way by default
is important:
- for people like me (glyph, Georg, etc), it allows us to keep our
home directory organised the way we like it. As
>> - for experienced users (Barry, skip, etc) that want ~/.local to be
>> more easily accessible, creating a visible ~/local symlink is an
>> utterly trivial exercise.
Barry> Hey Nick, I agree with everything above, except that I'd probably
Barry> put myself more in Glyph'
Nick> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fred> If user-local package installs went to ~/ by default ... with a
Fred> way to set an alternate "prefix" instead of ~/ using a distutils
Fred> configuration setting, I'd be happy enough.
Skip> +1 from me.
Nick> But then we clutter up peo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fred> If user-local package installs went to ~/ by default ... with a
Fred> way to set an alternate "prefix" instead of ~/ using a distutils
Fred> configuration setting, I'd be happy enough.
+1 from me.
But then we clutter up people's (read *my*) home direc
Fred> If user-local package installs went to ~/ by default ... with a
Fred> way to set an alternate "prefix" instead of ~/ using a distutils
Fred> configuration setting, I'd be happy enough.
+1 from me.
Skip
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Pyth
On 05:53 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 1, 2008, at 7:54 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
Interesting. I'm of the opposite opinion. I really don't want
Python dictating to me what my home directory should look like (a dot
file doesn't count because so many tools conspire to hide it from
me).
> Windows and Mac OS X have dedicated directories for application specific
> libraries. That is ~/Library on Mac and Application Data on Windows.
In fact, I had to write code for this, and had to read the specs for each.
Here's the code (I've substituted Python for UpLib):
if sys.platform == 'dar
On May 1, 2008, at 7:54 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
Interesting. I'm of the opposite opinion. I really don't want
Python dictating to me what my home directory should look like (a
dot file doesn't count because so many tools conspire to hide it
from me). I guess there's always $PYTHONUSERBASE
Barry Warsaw wrote:
> Time is running short to get any new features into Python 2.6 and 3.0.
> The release after this one is scheduled to be the first beta release, at
> which time we will institute a feature freeze. If your feature doesn't
> make it in by then, you'll have to wait until 2.7/3.1.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On May 2, 2008, at 1:48 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
etc, though. In the long term, if everyone followed suit on
~/.local, that would be great. But I don't want a ~/Python, ~/Java,
~/Ruby, ~/PHP, ~/Perl, ~/OCaml and ~/Erlang and a $PATH as long
On 03:49 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I stand corrected on a few points. You've convinced me that ~/lib/ is
wrong. But I still don't like ~/.local/; not in the last place because
it's not any more local than any other dot files or directories. The
"symmetry" with /usr/local/ is pretty weak, and
I stand corrected on a few points. You've convinced me that ~/lib/ is
wrong. But I still don't like ~/.local/; not in the last place because
it's not any more local than any other dot files or directories. The
"symmetry" with /usr/local/ is pretty weak, and certainly won't help
beginning users.
As
On 01:55 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 5:03 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi everybody. I apologize for writing yet another lengthy screed about
a simple directory naming issue. I feel strongly about it but I
encourate anyone who doesn't to simply skip it.
First, s
Guido van Rossum schrieb:
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 5:03 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 11:45 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I like this, except one issue: I really don't like the .local
> directory. I don't see any compelling reason why this needs to be
> ~/.local/lib/ -- IMO it should just b
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 9:31 PM, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I just closed the release blocker I created (the
> backwards-compatibility issue with warnings.showwarning() ). I would
> like to add a PendingDeprecationWarning (or stronger) to 2.6 for
> showwarning() implementations
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> This is a reminder that the LAST planned alpha releases of Python 2.6 and
> 3.0 are scheduled for next Wednesday, 07-May-2008. Please be diligent over
> the next week so
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 5:03 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11:45 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > I like this, except one issue: I really don't like the .local
> > directory. I don't see any compelling reason why this needs to be
> > ~/.local/lib/ -- IMO it should just be ~/lib/. There's no
On 11:45 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I like this, except one issue: I really don't like the .local
directory. I don't see any compelling reason why this needs to be
~/.local/lib/ -- IMO it should just be ~/lib/. There's no need to hide
it from view, especially since the user is expected to manag
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On May 1, 2008, at 7:45 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 2:27 PM, Christian Heimes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Barry Warsaw schrieb:
This is a reminder that the LAST planned alpha releases of Python
2.6
and 3.0 are scheduled f
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 2:27 PM, Christian Heimes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Barry Warsaw schrieb:
>
> > This is a reminder that the LAST planned alpha releases of Python 2.6
> > and 3.0 are scheduled for next Wednesday, 07-May-2008. Please be
> > diligent over the next week so that none of you
46 matches
Mail list logo
