Re: [Distutils] formencode as .egg in Debian ??
-->"Paul" == Paul Moore <p.f.moore@gmail.com> writes:
>> My point to David was simply that egg packaging in the .egg form is
>> more akin to Stow than to CPAN, so most of the flaws of CPAN are
>> not applicable to them.
Paul> Sorry, I don't know what Stow is, so that doesn't clarify things
Paul> to me (but that's OK, I got your point from the previous
Paul> paragraph, so if the clarification helps David, that's enough).
In fact, I use stow for anything not supported by Debian.
Stow allows you to maintain a repository of built "installations", and
to "activate" overlapping things one at a time. Normally, this means
different versions of the one "product". It achieves this by managing
symlink farms.
It's a fairly Unix-y thing :-)
>> I would call these "system packages", to distinguish them from
>> Python packages. You (and others) would like to ensure that any
>> project you install is wrapped in a system package.
Paul> Gotcha. And you understand my position perfectly.
That's my wish also.
I realise that other people (possibly more so on non-Debian systems?)
don't have such an attachment to the way the system manages installed
products.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not disputing that .eggs are useful, nor that
they provide capabilities that a Debian-packaged result of an
installation using 'python setup.py install' might not (at least now,
easy-deb aside).
And, fwiw, as a developer of Python modules, a way of distributing them
that allows others to safely and easily install different versions of my
modules with different applications on the same machine is attractive.
But I was hoping that I could help clarify the point of view of a Debian
user, by pointing out that there's at least some part of the Debian user
community that won't like installing .egg applications unless they're
sanely converted to .debs
d
Reply to: