[Python-Dev] Refactoring installation schemes
ssteinerX@gmail.com
ssteinerx at gmail.com
Wed Oct 28 15:30:29 CET 2009
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list
Wed Oct 28 15:30:29 CET 2009
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Refactoring installation schemes
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Refactoring installation schemes
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Oct 28, 2009, at 7:02 AM, Michael Foord wrote: > M.-A. Lemburg wrote: >> Tarek Ziadé wrote: >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> Since the addition of PEP 370, (per-user site packages), site.py and >>> distutils/command/install.py are *both* providing the various >>> installation directories for Python, >>> depending on the system and the Python version. >>> >>> We have also started to discuss lately in various Mailing Lists the >>> addition of new schemes for IronPython and Jython, meaning that we >>> might add some more in both places. >>> >>> I would like to suggest a simplification by adding a dedicated >>> module >>> to manage these installation schemes in one single place in the >>> stdlib. >>> >>> This new independant module would be used by site.py and distutils >>> and >>> would also make it easier for third party code to work with these >>> schemes. >>> Of course this new module would be rather simple and not add any new >>> import statement to avoid any overhead when Python starts and loads >>> site.py +1 This would help unpollute ~/ which is getting quite full of 'stuff.' S
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Refactoring installation schemes
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Refactoring installation schemes
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list