RetroSearch Browse

Sat Jun 26 22:06:30 CEST 2010 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-June/101120.html

On 25.06.2010 22:12, James Y Knight wrote:
>
> On Jun 25, 2010, at 4:53 AM, Scott Dial wrote:
>
>> On 6/24/2010 8:23 PM, James Y Knight wrote:
>>> On Jun 24, 2010, at 5:53 PM, Scott Dial wrote:
>>>> If the package has .so files that aren't compatible with other version
>>>> of python, then what is the motivation for placing that in a shared
>>>> location (since it can't actually be shared)
>>>
>>> Because python looks for .so files in the same place it looks for the
>>> .py files of the same package.
>>
>> My suggestion was that a package that contains .so files should not be
>> shared (e.g., the entire lxml package should be placed in a
>> version-specific path). The motivation for this PEP was to simplify the
>> installation python packages for distros; it was not to reduce the
>> number of .py files on the disk.
>>
>> Placing .so files together does not simplify that install process in any
>> way. You will still have to handle such packages in a special way.
>
>
> This is a good point, but I think still falls short of a solution. For a
> package like lxml, indeed you are correct. Since debian needs to build
> it once per version, it could just put the entire package (.py files and
> .so files) into a different per-python-version directory.

This is what is currently done.  This will increase the size of packages by 
duplicating the .py files, or you have to install the .py in a common location 
(irrelevant to sys.path), and provide (sym)links to the expected location.

A "different per-python-version directory" also has the disadvantage that file 
conflicts between (distribution) packages cannot be detected.

> However, then you have to also consider python packages made up of
> multiple distro packages -- like twisted or zope. Twisted includes some
> C extensions in the core package. But then there are other twisted
> modules (installed under a "twisted.foo" name) which do not include C
> extensions. If the base twisted package is installed under a
> version-specific directory, then all of the submodule packages need to
> also be installed under the same version-specific directory (and thus
> built for all versions).
>
> In the past, it has proven somewhat tricky to coordinate which directory
> the modules for package "foo" should be installed in, because you need
> to know whether *any* of the related packages includes a native ".so"
> file, not just the current package.
>
> The converse situation, where a base package did *not* get installed
> into a version-specific directory because it includes no native code,
> but a submodule *does* include a ".so" file, is even trickier.

I don't think that installation into different locations based on the presence 
of extension will work.  Should a location really change if an extension is 
added as an optimization?  Splitting a (python) package into different 
installation locations should be avoided.

   Matthias

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-June/101120.html below:

[Python-Dev] versioned .so files for Python 3.2