Re: -nspkg.pth and .pth files - should we get rid of them?
On 20 July 2015 at 13:04, Julien Cristau <julien.cristau@logilab.fr> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 07:58:13 -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>
>> On Jul 20, 2015, at 01:12 PM, Julien Cristau wrote:
>>
>> >Is that a serious question? Why should debian-python, for no good
>> >reason, break things that work just fine?
>>
>> Because it doesn't really work well when you are supporting both Python 2 and
>> Python 3. For example, if you have the 'foo' namespace with submodules 'bar'
>> and 'baz', you can't write a foo/__init__.py that supports old-style
>> namespaces for Python 2 and PEP 420 style namespaces for Python 3 because in
>> the latter *you can't have an __init__.py at all*.
>>
> That's exactly why Debian shouldn't mess with it. If upstream is
> python3-only, they can remove __init__.py and go PEP420. If not, they
> can use old-style namespaces on both python versions, and there's no
> reason for Debian to break that IMO.
Would it be fair to have a goal to only have PEP420 style namespaces
in python3 world?
And if there are upstreams that don't do that now, work with them to
achieve this and/or cpython/setuptools/distutils upstream.
--
Regards,
Dimitri.
Reply to: