On Jul 12, 2005, at 5:23 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
> Hmm, yes. It's that "site-packages should be managed by tools"
> attitude of mine which muddies the waters a bit. Maybe it's a Windows
> thing...
It's not. In many cases, it will be impossible for users without root/
wheel level permissions to modify the site-packages directory at all
on *nix systems that have proper package management, which is just
about everything now. Additionally, most Redhat/Fedora admins will
tell you that having anything other than rpm touching the RPM managed
site-packages directory is bad form (there's actually good reasons
for this), even when you do have permissions (I'm not sure how
prevalent this mindset is outside the Redhat/Fedora community).
I think that many people running systems built on package management
will want to setup an alternative install_dir (/usr/local/lib/
pythonX.X/site-packages or perhaps /opt/pythonX.X/site-packages).
This is why I think the only-load-pth-from-site-packages issue is
important. Then again, wrapper scripts make it less of an issue.
teeder-totter-teeder-totter
I'm still waiting to see how people maintaining python packages for
Linux/BSD distributions feel about eggs. So far I don't think they've
had to think about it a whole lot.
Ryan Tomayko
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://naeblis.cx/rtomayko/
_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
