Floris Bruynooghe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think it would be really good if we could agree on a simple
> solution for this problem. However I haven't really seen an
> agreement come out of this thread. So far what (I think) some
> proposed solutions are:
>
> 1 Have a different path in /usr/local (not
> /usr/local/lib/pythonX.Y/site-packages) to augment the system
> sys.path with.
>
> 2 Make sure /usr/local is near the end of the sys.path so system apps
> won't break due to it (currently
> /usr/local/lib/pythonX.Y/site-packages appears before
> /usr/lib/pythonX.Y/site-packages on my system, not sure if this is
> normal and if not who's fault that is).
These both appear to be addressing the issue that customisations (of
the form "install a new Python package") in '/usr/local' can disrupt
the behaviour of system tools using Python.
So, here's my proposed solution:
Provide a simple way for a Python program or instance to specify
"don't have '/usr/local' in the 'sys.path'". Recommend that the system
Python tools use this feature to ignore '/usr/local'. Continue using
'/usr/local' for custom site-local packages.
That is, if we're talking about the system Python tools being the
unusual case ("don't want site-local custom packages"), then that's
where the focus should be on allowing for that special case.
Yes, I'm aware of 'sys.path.remove("/usr/local")'. Is that the
simplest way to ensure the above behaviour?
--
\ "If you wish to strive for peace of soul, then believe; if you |
`\ wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." -- Friedrich |
_o__) Nietzsche |
Ben Finney
?
_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
