Chris Withers wrote:
>> You would be wrong, as you would know if you had tried running the
>> effbot's packages inside an eggified environment: he is actively
>> hostile to changes which would make this all go away, which leaves us
>> with the necessity of forking his release.
I don't believe this to be the case, so I dropped Fred a mail.
Here's his response:
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> Hi Chris, thanks for the heads up.
>
> Not sure what's going on here; PIL is traditionally installed in
> site-packages/PIL so that everything is available as "from PIL import
> ...", but with a pth file that adds that directory to the path so that
> pre-package code still works (there are tons of such code out there).
>
> It looks like the setup.py file achieves this as follows:
>
> extra_path = "PIL",
> package_dir={"": "PIL"},
> packages=[""],
>
> where extra_path creates the pth file, and the package_dir stuff makes
> sure distutils installs things under PIL and not PIL/PIL. Some quick
> Googling indicates that setuptools' support for extra_path is spotty
> (non-existent until 2006, limited since then), so maybe this is the
> issue?
>
> Could you persuade whoever's ranting about this to jump over to
> image-sig and propose a patch that fixes whatever problem Plone is
> having but preserves the old behaviour?
Is such a patch possible? If so, could someone do as Fred asks and do so
while resisting the temptation to be rude and further alienate the
maintainer of what is a fantastic package? (yeah, I know, rich coming
from me...)
cheers,
Chris
--
Simplistix - Content Management, Batch Processing & Python Consulting
- http://www.simplistix.co.uk
_______________________________________________
Repoze-dev mailing list
Repoze-dev@lists.repoze.org
http://lists.repoze.org/listinfo/repoze-dev
