Re: -nspkg.pth and .pth files - should we get rid of them?

[Julien Cristau <julien.cristau@logilab.fr>]

On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 11:58:07 +0100, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:

> 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?
> 
Is that a serious question?  Why should debian-python, for no good
reason, break things that work just fine?

Cheers,
Julien
-- 
Julien Cristau          <julien.cristau@logilab.fr>
Logilab		        http://www.logilab.fr/
Informatique scientifique & gestion de connaissances