RetroSearch Browse

Fri May 1 20:49:40 CEST 2009 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-May/089333.html

At 05:35 PM 5/1/2009 +0100, Chris Withers wrote:
>P.J. Eby wrote:
>>It's unclear, however, who is using base packages besides mx.* and 
>>ll.*, although I'd guess from the PyPI listings that perhaps Django 
>>is.  (It seems that "base" packages are more likely to use a 
>>'base-extension' naming pattern, vs. the 'namespace.project' 
>>pattern used by "pure" packages.)
>
>I'll stress it again in case you missed it the first time: I think 
>the main reason people use "pure namespace" versus "base namespace" 
>packages is because hardly anyone know how to do the latter, not 
>because there is no desire to do so!

I didn't say there's *no* desire, however IIRC the only person who 
*ever* asked on distutils-sig how to do a base package with 
setuptools was the author of the ll.* packages.  And in the case of 
at least the zope.* peak.* and osaf.* namespace packages it was 
specifically *not* the intention to have a base __init__.

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-May/089333.html below:

[Python-Dev] PEP 382: Namespace Packages