RetroSearch Browse

Sat May 9 16:10:23 CEST 2009 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-May/089556.html

Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> So this __init__.py can have code in it? 
> 
> That's the point, yes.
> 
>> And base.tar can have other modules and subpackages in it?
> 
> Certainly, yes.

Great, when is the PEP due to land in 2.x? ;-)

>> What happens if the base and an addon both define a package called
>> simplistix.somepackage?
> 
> Depends on whether simplistix.somepackage is a namespace package
> (it should). If so, they get merged just as any other namespace
> package.

Sorry, I was looking at potential bug cases here. What happens if it's 
not a namespace package?

> See PEP 382 (search for "*").
> 
>> I thought .pth files just had python in them?
> 
> Not at all - they never did. They have paths in them.

I've certainly seen them with python in, and that's what I hate about 
them...

>>> Unpack each of them anywhere on sys.path, in any order.
>> How would this work if base, addon1 and addon2 were eggs managed by
>> buildout or setuptools?
> 
> What is a managed egg (i.e. what kind of management does buildout
> or setuptools apply to it)?

Sorry, bad wording on my part... I guess I meant more how would 
buildout/setuptools go about installing/uninstalling/etc packages 
thatconform to PEP 382? Would setuptools/buildout need modification or 
would the changes take effect lower down in the stack?

cheers,

Chris

-- 
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting
            - http://www.simplistix.co.uk

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-May/089556.html below:

[Python-Dev] PEP 382: little help for stupid people?