On 23 April 2015 at 07:25, M.-A. Lemburg <m...@egenix.com> wrote: > On 22.04.2015 21:08, Robert Collins wrote:
> I don't think support mixed setups is really a practical option. > > Either the namespace package is legacy all the way, or it > isn't and uses PEP 420. > > Wouldn't it be possible for setuptools or pip to work this out > depending on the Python version ? Ah, ok so I think this is the crux - I'm arguing that Python version isn't a big enough check. Because anything installed with a current version of setuptools, or any wheel built likewise, is going to not have that per-Python-version check. And it seems to me that that implies that bringing in a per-Python-version check in a new release of setuptools or pip is going to result in mixed mode installs: install name.A with setuptools-X [legacy] upgrade setuptools install name.B with setuptools-Y [does a Python version check] -> boom But perhaps sufficient glue can be written to make it all work. My personal preferred migration strategy is: - have a flag day amongst the cooperating packages that make up the namespace - release versions that are all in the new layout in a batch to PyPI. It would be nice if PEP-426 had a conflicts stanza, so you could say conflicts: [name.A < version_with_new_X] without that implying that name.A *should* be installed. -Rob -- Robert Collins <rbtcoll...@hp.com> Distinguished Technologist HP Converged Cloud _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
