On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 20 April 2015 at 14:31, Daniel Holth <dho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This is just one example of a potentially useful setup that would be
>> helped by per-distribution { category : path } mappings. That doesn't
>> mean there is not another that you might like better.
>
> OK, understood. Thanks for the explanation. I'm still uncertain over
> one thing, though. Who (in your view) is expected to be changing the
> defaults as part of an install? If doing so is viewed as an "advanced
> feature targeted at creators of distribution packages - i.e. people
> creating RPM/deb/MSI build scripts", then I'm fine with that, 99% of
> pip users won't ever see, need, or even be aware of the feature. The
> 1% of people who need the feature can deal with it.
>
> That's why I'm insistent on having good defaults - it's all that 99%
> of users will ever deal with. The 1% who customise things, will know
> what they are doing.
> PaulThe author of the installer or package format conversion tool would choose the defaults 99% of the time. These would vary as a function of the operating system, --user install scheme, hypothetical isolated install scheme etc. Pip would choose its defaults to be as unsurprising as possible compared to its current model. Hopefully we will never have to talk about fine grained install scheme customization again after specifying how to make it possible. _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
