Chris Billington <chrisjbilling...@gmail.com> added the comment: coverage.py's documentation mentions:
> The sitecustomize.py technique is cleaner, but may involve modifying an > existing sitecustomize.py, since there can be only one. If there is no > sitecustomize.py already, you can create it in any directory on the Python > path. > The .pth technique seems like a hack, but works, and is documented behavior. > On the plus side, you can create the file with any name you like so you don’t > have to coordinate with other .pth files. On the minus side, you have to > create the file in a system-defined directory, so you may need privileges to > write it. This brings to mind the transition of many programs from using a single config file or startup script to using a directory of config/startup files parsed/executed in alphabetical order. Would a sitecustomize.d/ directory (with files within it executed in alphabetical order) as a replacement for executable code in .pth files be an improvement on the status quo? ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue33944> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
