On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 05:30:43PM +0000, Paul Moore wrote: [cut] > I'd think that the idea of a site-packages/stest directory would need > a much more compelling use case to justify it.
Thanks for the detailed explanation! It sounds that there's much more work involved than I thought, so it's probably better to drop this proposal. > PS There's nothing stopping a (distribution) package FOO from > installing (Python) packages foo and foo-tests. It's not common, and > probably violates people's expectations, but it's not *illegal* (the > setuptools distribution installs pkg_resources as well as setuptools, > for a well-known example). So in theory, if people wanted this enough, > they could have implemented it right now, without needing any change > to Python or the packaging ecosystem. If people don't come with pitchforks, that's a good solution. I suspected that people would complain both if foo-tests were installed automatically like pkg_resources but also if foo-tests were a separate optional package (too much hassle). Stefan Krah _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/