On 4/27/06, Gustavo Carneiro <gjcarneiro at gmail.com> wrote: > On 4/27/06, Phillip J. Eby <pje at telecommunity.com> wrote: > > > > At 03:48 PM 4/27/2006 +0200, Bernhard Herzog wrote: > > >"Gustavo Carneiro" <gjcarneiro at gmail.com> writes: > > > > > > > Now the problem. Suppose you have the source package > > python-foo-bar, > > > > which installs $pythondir/foo/__init__.py and > > $pythondir/foo/bar.py. This > > > > would make a module called "foo.bar" available. Likewise, you can > > have the > > > > source package python-foo-zbr, which installs > > > $pythondir/foo/__init__.py and > > > > $pythondir/foo/zbr.py. This would make a module called "foo.zbr" > > > available. > > > > > > > > The two packages above install the file > > $pythondir/foo/__init__.py. If > > > > one of them adds some content to __init__.py, the other one will > > overwrite > > > > it. Packaging these two packages for e.g. debian would be extremely > > > > difficult, because no two .deb packages are allowed to intall the > > same file. > > > > > >Yet another solution would be to put foo/__init__.py into a third > > >package, e.g. python-foo, on which both python-foo-bar and > > >python-foo-zbr depend. > > > You can't be serious. One package just to install a __init__.py file? > Sure. Have you counted the number of 'empty' packages in Debian lately? Besides, Guido's original proposal is not a fix for your problem, either; he only proposes to change the requirement for *sub*packages. -- Thomas Wouters <thomas at python.org> Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20060427/71af164c/attachment.htm
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4