RetroSearch Browse

Mon Jan 7 12:37:11 CET 2008 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-January/075960.html

On 07/01/2008, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:
> There seems to be a misunderstanding. This is *not* going to happen
> for standard library package names. I'm fine with inventing mechanisms
> to allow 3rd party packages to beo cobbled together from multiple
> contributions (it would seem to make sense for e.g. Twisted or Zope).
> But I am absolutely squarely against 3rd party installs adding to (or
> worse, overriding) standard library package names. This is (to me)
> simple common sense, the reason being "knowing who to blame". We get
> enough bug reports in the Python tracker about 3rd party software as
> it is.

OK, that seems pretty clear.

In which case, I'm -1 on having a "databases" package in the stdlib
(this discussion should probably move back to the stdlib reorg list
now). Keeping things like sqlite at the top level seems fine to me.

I don't have a general rule I'm applying here - I think each
suggestion should be considered on its own merits.

Paul.

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-January/075960.html below:

[Python-Dev] pkgutil, pkg_resource and Python 3.0 name space packages