Re: -nspkg.pth and .pth files - should we get rid of them?
On 20 July 2015 at 09:00, Julien Cristau <julien.cristau@logilab.fr> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 09:56:55 +0200, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
>
>> [Julien Cristau, 2015-07-20]
>> > On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 21:28:32 +0200, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
>> >
>> > > Should we patch distutils/setuptools to not generate them? It generates
>> > > them even for Python 3.X (which has PEP420 implemented)
>> >
>> > Please don't. Using an pkg_resources-style vs PEP420 namespace should
>> > be an upstream decision made individually for each namespace.
>>
>> dh_py* tools then
>
> No, since that would break sharing a namespace with parts installed
> as a debian package and parts using the normal python tools.
And why should debian-python support that?
If one wants to mix things, one is better of using virtualenv. I can
see the point of re-using system things for compiled extensions and
the interpreter itself, but not for the namespace jungles.
--
Regards,
Dimitri.
Reply to: