On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 11:37:07AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: > > Moreover, many of us already have a database of *all* packages on the > system, not just Python-language ones: the package database of our > operating system. Adding another, parallel, database which needs > separate maintenance, and only applies to Python packages, is not a > step forward in such a situation. I agree with you completely. There are three things I can see myself wanting from an easy_install command: 1) To download and install an RPM/dpkg to a system-wide location. The package is then removable using the normal system package manager. 2) To download the source of a package. 3) To install a package to my home directory. I would much rather that this hypothetical easy_install did `rpm --prefix "$HOME/.local" -ivh some_package.rpm` than have a Python-specific database. > > They both agreed that it made perfect sense. I told one of them > > about the alternate proposal to define a new database file to > > contain a list of installed packages, and he sighed and rolled his > > eyes and said "So they are planning to reinvent apt!". > > That's pretty much my reaction, too. Me, too. -- Andrew McNabb http://www.mcnabbs.org/andrew/ PGP Fingerprint: 8A17 B57C 6879 1863 DE55 8012 AB4D 6098 8826 6868 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20080409/deba6c62/attachment.pgp
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