On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Vinay Sajip <vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > From: Daniel Holth <dho...@gmail.com> > > > >> pkg_resources without declaring that dependency. That is why I >> proposed writing the install paths to an importable file in the >> package's namespace on request without a new API. This would also > > > Not sure what you mean by this, but I hope by "importable" you don't mean > Python source. JSON sounds like a better option. We currently write all the > installed files as a simple text file (RECORD), but there's no reason it > couldn't be a JSON file which held the mappings of category -> path used > during installation, as well as the list of files installed. When you say > "package's namespace", are you referring to the .dist-info directory, or > something else? Those two words are fraught with ambiguity.
I had suggested writing the mapping next to one of the package's installed .py files, but it sounds like all other commenters would prefer a JSON file inside the .dist-info directory. I would prefer to keep the RECORD manifest of all installed files plus hashes separate from the e.g. .dist-info/install_scheme.json, it should not be necessary to parse the former just to figure out where the config directory is. _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
