On 4/13/06, Ian Bicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mars wrote:
> > I prefer the distutils installation scheme for --home or --prefix or
> > --root lined up across operating systems. But this is contrary to
> > distutils' general case installation scenario. (perhaps a new
> > keyword, '--environ
Mars wrote:
> I prefer the distutils installation scheme for --home or --prefix or
> --root lined up across operating systems. But this is contrary to
> distutils' general case installation scenario. (perhaps a new
> keyword, '--environment' or '--deploy' would make sense? Or we could
> use setu
This has been a very good discussion. I have been doing a bit more
thinking regarding why I intended to use a packaging tool in the first
place.
I am relying on the package versioning scheme to ensure that critical
libraries line up across families of applications. Libraries for
internal company
Iwan Vosloo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I suppose there is a correlation between what Philip calls an
> environment in this sense, and a machine in the debian/apt world. An
> environment is just a more abstract way of looking at it allowing more
> flexibility.
Sorrry, that was meant to be Ian,
Hi Maris,
I'm not suggesting using apt - just thinking about the difference in
models. I suppose the pure python equivalent of apt and its
repositories would be to have your own private PyPi (the respository),
and using easy_install to install things from there onto individual
machines. This do
