On Jul 24, 2010, at 11:59 PM, schmir at gmail.com wrote: >Barry Warsaw <barry at python.org> writes: > >> On Jul 23, 2010, at 01:46 PM, schmir at gmail.com wrote: >> >>>Doesn't anybody else think this is lost work for very little gain? My >>>/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages directory consumes 200MB on disk. I >>>couldn't care less if my /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages consumed >>>the same amount of disk space... >> >> Right, you probably don't care now that your extension modules live >> in foo.so so it probably won't make much difference if they were >> named foo-blahblah.so, as long as they import. :) > >Most of the time it won't make much difference, right. But I can assure >you, that it will bite some people and there is some code to be >adapted. Do you have concrete examples? Without that it's just speculation I can't do much to address. Is the problem big or small? Easy to work around or not? "Change is bad" isn't a constructive argument. ;) >> If you use Debian or Ubuntu though, it'll be a win for you by allow >> us to make Python support much more robust. > >I'd much prefer to have cleanly separated environments by having >separate directories for my python modules. Sharing the source code and >complicating things will not lead to increased robustness. That's fine, but it's not the way Debian/Ubuntu works today. PEP 3149 adoption will definitely remove significant complication for deploying multiple Python versions at the same time on those systems. -Barry -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20100726/6409bc85/attachment.pgp>
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