Chris Barker <[email protected]> writes: > On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 8:41 AM, Nick Coghlan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The point where I draw the line is supporting *dynamic* linking > > between modules - > > I'm confused -- you don't want a system to be able to install ONE version > of a lib that various python packages can all link to? That's really the > key use-case for me....
Agreed. A key pain point for Python distributions is the lack of support for installing *one* instrance of a Python library, and other Python modules able to discover such installed libraries which meet their declared dependency. For example: * Python distribution ‘foo’, for Python implementation “D” on architecture “X“, declares dependency on “bar >= 1.7”. * Installing Python distribution ‘bar’ version 1.8, on a host running Python “D” for architecture “X”, goes to a single instance for the ‘bar’ library for that architecture and Python implementation. * Invoking the ‘foo’ code on the same host will go looking (dynamically?) for the dependency ‘bar’ and find version 1.8 already installed in the one instance on that host. It uses that and all is well. I'm in agreement with Chris that, while the above example may not currently play out as described, that is a fault to be fixed by improving Python's packaging and distribution tools so that it *is* a first-class use case. Nick, you seem to be arguing against that. Can you clarify? -- \ “Natural catastrophes are rare, but they come often enough. We | `\ need not force the hand of nature.” —Carl Sagan, _Cosmos_, 1980 | _o__) | Ben Finney _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
