Sorry, there is an error in my last post. It's corrected as:
The abaqus python distribution has libA 1.0, the external package to be
installed is LibB, which requires libA2.0, and we don't want to change every
import in LibB to be import /somewhere/libA2.0, because the source code may
have not
>From the viewpoint of the package user, people don't want to change every
>import to "require a version at runtime". If "set up a python path in a
>wrapper script" is a better strategy, can you please give an example for the
>following use case:
The abaqus python distribution has libA 1.0,
ACTIVITY SUMMARY (2019-05-10 - 2019-05-17)
Python tracker at https://bugs.python.org/
To view or respond to any of the issues listed below, click on the issue.
Do NOT respond to this message.
Issues counts and deltas:
open7067 (-17)
closed 41633 (+91)
total 48700 (+74)
Open issues
This sounds exactly like what people used to do with eggs. You could have
multiple versions of a package on the path as eggs and then require a
version at runtime. The approach has problems. Ruby also abandoned a
strategy where random app code depends on package management code at
runtime.
One
Thanks for the idea but there are currently no plans to support such a
feature. If you would like to see it then you will need to write a PEP with
a proof-of-concept to demonstrate how you would expect such a feature to
work.
On Fri., May 17, 2019, 07:55 Q via Python-Dev,
wrote:
> A lot of the
A lot of the Python code we use in production are used directly as imports in
other python
distributions (such as the python comes with the finite element software Abaqus
and MSC Marc), many
packages (such as matplotlib, numpy) that may have varying versioned
dependencies.
I was wondering
A lot of the Python code we use in production are used directly as imports in
other python
distributions (such as the python comes with the finite element software Abaqus
and MSC Marc), many
packages (such as matplotlib, numpy) that may have varying versioned
dependencies, which makes it is
Chris Barker - NOAA Federal writes:
> Frankly, multiple long meandering threads in s single mailing list
> are not s very good archive either.
True, but I have no idea how to address that administratively, except
to have a *very* strong moderator.
> Ideally, the PEP is updated with a summary
