At 05:35 PM 5/1/2009 +0100, Chris Withers wrote:
P.J. Eby wrote:
It's unclear, however, who is using base packages besides mx.* and
ll.*, although I'd guess from the PyPI listings that perhaps Django
is. (It seems that "base" packages are more likely to use a
'base-extension' naming pattern, vs. the 'namespace.project'
pattern used by "pure" packages.)
I'll stress it again in case you missed it the first time: I think
the main reason people use "pure namespace" versus "base namespace"
packages is because hardly anyone know how to do the latter, not
because there is no desire to do so!
I didn't say there's *no* desire, however IIRC the only person who
*ever* asked on distutils-sig how to do a base package with
setuptools was the author of the ll.* packages. And in the case of
at least the zope.* peak.* and osaf.* namespace packages it was
specifically *not* the intention to have a base __init__.
_______________________________________________
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
