Thomas Kluyver <tho...@kluyver.me.uk> added the comment:
As a lurker on this issue: I think a lot of energy is being expended arguing about what is and isn't legitimate use cases, when there's actually more stuff that people agree about than not. I think this issue should be broken down into two, neither of which will actually result in removing pth files: 1. Better ways to inspect and control the sys.path extension feature (as per Barry's message https://bugs.python.org/issue33944#msg337417 ). 2. Designing a replacement for the arbitrary-code-at-startup feature (or even several replacements to meet different needs), leading to its eventual deprecation. If you like the ability for packages to install interpreter-startup hooks, then pth files are an ugly way to do it. If you don't, then you want better ways to control it. So let's see what we can come up with. At least several important use cases (coverage and debugging) would probably work with an environment variable to specify startup code. The coverage hooks already check an environment variable themselves, so it's clearly a control mechanism that works. It's also familiar from things like LD_PRELOAD that environment variables can affect code in powerful ways. But the PYTHONSTARTUP variable is not suitable for this, because it only affects interactive shell sessions. So maybe one useful step would be to specify a new environment variable, maybe PYTHONPRELOAD, and figure out how it will interact with all the other options. Then we can re-evaluate the use cases Anthony described (https://bugs.python.org/issue33944#msg337406 ) and debate the need for other startup-code mechanisms to go along with that. ---------- _______________________________________ 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
