On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Honestly, I don't see what's so bad about pth files. They are a > standard supported Python approach. Maybe setuptools' use of them is > messy? exactly. The fact that setuptools over-uses (abuses?) pth files doesn't mean that they can't be used reasonably. and given the differences of filesystems, it's a not-too-bad way to simulate symbolic links :-) Why not just have a single pth file, maintained by the build > tool, for all editable installs? shouldn't that be maintained by the install tool? i.e. pip -- the whole idea is that the install tool is different than the built tool, yes? and adding a package in editable mode is an installation job, not a build job. Also -- the idea here is that pip will know it's installed so it can upgrade, de-install, etc, so it really is pip's job to maintain the "editable_install.pth" file. Most users would then only have one > or two pth files. > let's us make sure we don't end up with the easy_install.pth nightmare! -CHB -- Christopher Barker, Ph.D. Oceanographer Emergency Response Division NOAA/NOS/OR&R (206) 526-6959 voice 7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception chris.bar...@noaa.gov
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
