Re: -nspkg.pth and .pth files - should we get rid of them?
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 13:12:14 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> 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?
>
My point being, pkg_resources-style namespaces and PEP420-style
namespaces are different beasts. Trying to (partly/automagically)
convert one style to the other is disruptive and unwelcome. If you want
to improve setuptools to support PEP420 namespaces then by all means do
that, upstream, without breaking things that work fine today.
Thanks,
Julien
--
Julien Cristau <julien.cristau@logilab.fr>
Logilab http://www.logilab.fr/
Informatique scientifique & gestion de connaissances
Reply to: