On Tuesday 20 September 2005 10:22, Rich Burridge wrote: > [lots of well-written and logical information about a proposed > vendor-packages directory snipped] > Is this something that would be considered for a future Python > release?
+1 to that from me... it looks like good idea - have you submitted the patch to SourceForge? Alternatively, though, there is another option, and it seems to be what Debian tries to encourage: the distribution places its packages in /usr/lib/python2.3/site-packages. The local administrator can then place his/her packages in /usr/local/lib/python2.3/site-packages. Both locations are searched. Unfortunately, the Python distutils default to /usr/lib/python2.3/site-packages, so that administrator-installed packages are also placed in /usr/lib with the vendor/distro packages. If this was changed, so that /usr/local/lib... actually became the default for locally-installed packages, that would be a good thing IMHO. But it is probably not as elegant as a vendor-packages directory. - Michael -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list