On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:48 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2010/8/12 Éric Araujo <mer...@netwok.org>: >>> Choosing an arbitrary location we think is good on every system is fine >>> and non risky I think, as long as Python let the various distribution >>> change those paths though configuration. >> >> Don’t you have a bootstrapping problem? How do you know where to look at >> the sysconfig file that tells where to look at config files?
Not if located in a place known/owned by the interpreter whatever the layout is. > > Personally, I'm not clear on what a separate syconfig.cfg file offers > over clearly separating the directory configuration settings and > continuing to have distributions patch sysconfig.py directly. The > bootstrapping problem (which would encourage classifying synconfig.cfg > as source code and placing it alongside syscongig.py) is a major part > of that point of view. Sure, sysconfig.cfg would be part of the distribution, and this is not really different from code from our core point of view. But it seems more appealing to give the ability to change installation locations through configuration rather than by patching the code, because the latter also implies that Python behaves differently when patched, and add more maintenance burden for everybody. For us for instance, it would be more comfortable to keep most content in sysconfig private, so we can change them at ease without breaking distributions that patches it. I would hate to have to do a deprecation cycle if we change the way sysconfig internally works. A documented cfg file feels just more standard-ish to me for this. Regards. Tarek -- Tarek Ziadé | http://ziade.org _______________________________________________ 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
