On 6/25/2010 2:58 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > I assume you are talking about PEP 3147. You're right that the PEP was > for pyc files and that's it. No one is talking about rewriting the > PEP.
Yes, I am making reference to PEP 3147. I make reference to that PEP because this change is of the same order of magnitude as the .pyc change, and we asked for a PEP for that, and if this .so stuff is an extension of that thought process, then it should either be reflected by that PEP or a new PEP. > The motivation Barry is using is an overarching one of distros > wanting to use a single directory install location for all installed > Python versions. That led to PEP 3147 and now this work. It's unclear to me that that is the correct motivation, which you are divining. As I understand it, the motivation to be to *simplify installation* for distros, which may or may not be achieved by using a single directory. In the case of pure-python packages, a single directory is an obvious win. In the case of mixed-python packages, I remain to be persuaded there is any improvement achieved. > This is meant to be used by distros in a programmatic fashion, so my > response is "so what?" Their package management system is going to > maintain the directory, not a person. Then why is the status quo unacceptable? I have already explained how this will still require programmatic steps of at least the same difficulty as the status quo requires, so why should we change anything? I am skeptical that this is a simple programmatic problem either: take any random package on PyPI and tell me whether or not it has a .so file that must be compiled. If such a .so file exists, then this package must be special-cased and compiled for each version of Python on the system (or will ever be on the system?). Such a package yields an arbitrary number of .so files due to the number of version of Python on the machine, and I can't imagine how it is simpler to manage all of those files than it is to manage multiple site-packages. > You're conflating what is being discussed with PEP 3147. That PEP is > independent of this. PEP 3147 just empowered this work to be relevant. Without a PEP (be it PEP 3147 or some other), what is the justification for doing this? The burden should be on "you" to explain why this is a good idea and not just a clever idea. -- Scott Dial sc...@scottdial.com scod...@cs.indiana.edu _______________________________________________ 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