RetroSearch Browse

Tue Jan 22 18:03:19 CET 2008 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-January/076395.html

M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> I don't really understand what all this has to do with per user
> site-packages.
> 
> Note that the motivation for having per user site-packages
> was to:
> 
>  * address a common request by Python extension package users,
> 
>  * get rid off the hackery done by setuptools in order
>    to provide this.
> 
> As such the PEP can also be seen as an effort to enable code
> cleanup *before* adding e.g. pkg_resources to the stdlib.

I guess it's a typical case of "while you on it, can you fix the rest of
the world, too?". People see that I invest a fair share of time into the
PEP. So they hope I'm going to solve loosely connected issues, too.

Personally I'm not going to solve every security issue with my PEP. I
suggest that all the people, who were interested in security, come
together and write another PEP.

Christian

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-January/076395.html below:

[Python-Dev] PEP: per user site-packages directory