On 19 January 2018 at 18:19, Stefan Krah <ste...@bytereef.org> wrote: > 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).
Personally, I prefer packages that don't install their tests (I'm just about willing to tolerate the tests-inside-the package-approach) so I actually dislike this option myself - I was just saying it's possible. Paul _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
