On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 11:37:07AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: > > Moreover, many of us already have a database of *all* packages on the > system, not just Python-language ones: the package database of our > operating system. Adding another, parallel, database which needs > separate maintenance, and only applies to Python packages, is not a > step forward in such a situation.
I agree with you completely. There are three things I can see myself wanting from an easy_install command: 1) To download and install an RPM/dpkg to a system-wide location. The package is then removable using the normal system package manager. 2) To download the source of a package. 3) To install a package to my home directory. I would much rather that this hypothetical easy_install did `rpm --prefix "$HOME/.local" -ivh some_package.rpm` than have a Python-specific database. > > They both agreed that it made perfect sense. I told one of them > > about the alternate proposal to define a new database file to > > contain a list of installed packages, and he sighed and rolled his > > eyes and said "So they are planning to reinvent apt!". > > That's pretty much my reaction, too. Me, too. -- Andrew McNabb http://www.mcnabbs.org/andrew/ PGP Fingerprint: 8A17 B57C 6879 1863 DE55 8012 AB4D 6098 8826 6868
pgpNRz0ZLDRLL.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
