Ronald Oussoren wrote: > > On 24 Feb, 2009, at 16:20, P.J. Eby wrote: >> >>> Indeed. Having an index file would make things a whole lot simpler. >> >> For *whom*? Certainly not for system packaging tools (rpm, deb, et al). >> >> A design goal should be to allow system packaging tools to install a >> static file footprint: i.e., independent files with predefined >> content, and no post-processing steps. You can't do that with a >> shared file, which is why setuptools uses a .pth hack to install >> namespace packages when building packages for rpm et al. > > What about another interoperability hook for system packages: specify a > file that a (system) package manager can include into the egg-info > directory (or egg-file) to tell setuptools/pip that this egg is managed > by the system and hence shouldn't be removed by setuptools/pip. > > Which such a file the user of python package tool could be warned if he > tries to uninstall an egg that's owned by the system, instead of > invoking the wrath of a sysadmin by removing such files.
But that is already implemented via file/dir permissions. By your reasoning, we should also have something which warns users not to install to the system directory. These ideas are a duplication of functionality -- this functionality is implemented by the disabling write permissions of non-sysadmins into system directories. Or do you propose users put some stuff into their system directories not managed by their package managers and other stuff managed by the package managers? _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
