RetroSearch Browse

Sat Mar 22 14:24:18 CET 2008 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-March/078174.html

On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 12:33:49PM +0100, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> > The data isn't for them to use to meet their use cases, it's for them to 
> > *provide* so that Python tools don't stomp on, uninstall, or otherwise 
> > interfere with files installed by the system.  In other words, for 
> > system packagers, it's a communication from the system to Python, rather 
> > than the other way around.  Even though the distutils will build the 
> > file in the bdist, the system packaging tools would be free to generate 
> > their own file listing and signatures and such.
> 
> Ok, that's a reasonable requirement. It will be difficult to implement,
> though, as it will require Linux distributors (in particular) to include
> the database snippets in their packages.
> 
> Essentially, one would have to contribute patches to all the 
> distributions (we care about, at least), and then nag the respective
> maintainers to include these patches.

Not true.  You just need to make sure that "setup.py install" creates
that database.  With the proposed format of the database this is just
a file in the correct location - exactly for this reason.  Next time
the distribution will build the package that database file will be in
place.

I still maintain that an installdb for the system packages doesn't
bring anything to the party as it would be in a system-only directory.
But I've argued that in my other emails...

Regards
Floris

-- 
Debian GNU/Linux -- The Power of Freedom
www.debian.org | www.gnu.org | www.kernel.org

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-March/078174.html below:

[Python-Dev] [Distutils] How we can get rid of eggs for 2.6 and beyond