RetroSearch Browse

Tue Sep 20 12:37:27 EDT 2005 · http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2005-September/307320.html

On Tuesday 20 September 2005 10:22, Rich Burridge wrote:
> [lots of well-written and logical information about a proposed
> vendor-packages directory snipped] 
> Is this something that would be considered for a future Python
> release?

+1 to that from me... it looks like good idea - have you submitted the 
patch to SourceForge?

Alternatively, though, there is another option, and it seems to be what 
Debian tries to encourage: the distribution places its packages 
in /usr/lib/python2.3/site-packages. The local administrator can then 
place his/her packages in /usr/local/lib/python2.3/site-packages. Both 
locations are searched.

Unfortunately, the Python distutils default 
to /usr/lib/python2.3/site-packages, so that administrator-installed 
packages are also placed in /usr/lib with the vendor/distro packages. 
If this was changed, so that /usr/local/lib... actually became the 
default for locally-installed packages, that would be a good thing 
IMHO. But it is probably not as elegant as a vendor-packages directory.

- Michael

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2005-September/307320.html below:

vendor-packages directory