At 07:41 PM 5/1/2009 +0200, Martin v. Löwis 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, for one, have been trying to figure out how to do "base namespace" > > packages for years... > >You mean, without PEP 382? > >That won't be possible, unless you can coordinate all addon packages. >Base packages are a feature solely of PEP 382. Actually, if you are using only the distutils, you can do this by listing only modules in the addon projects; this is how the ll.* tools are doing it. That only works if the packages are all being installed in the same directory, though, not as eggs.
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