At 04:42 PM 1/22/2008 +0100, 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. Setuptools doesn't do any hackery for per-user site-packages, although its documentation does explain how to set up such a thing if you want it: http://peak.telecommunity.com/DevCenter/EasyInstall#administrator-installation http://peak.telecommunity.com/DevCenter/EasyInstall#mac-os-x-user-installation Meanwhile, note that having per-user site-packages directories doesn't eliminate the need to be able to have PYTHONPATH directories treated as "site" directories, which is hasn't been discussed at all. >As such the PEP can also be seen as an effort to enable code >cleanup *before* adding e.g. pkg_resources to the stdlib. Code cleanup of what? There's nothing in pkg_resources that would change for per-user site package directories, since pkg_resources doesn't do any installation work.
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