On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 01:30:14PM +1200, Greg Ewing wrote:
Gael Varoquaux wrote:
a second Python
needs to be installed on top of the system Python to add modules to it.
Maybe the system should come with two pythons installed,
one for use by the system and the other for users to add
Gael Varoquaux wrote:
I think this discussion is really going on because Python does not have
good library-versioning support.
I personally think that the very idea to have several side by side
versions of the same package is doomed to failure: what is needed is a
stable API for the used
Gael Varoquaux wrote:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 01:30:14PM +1200, Greg Ewing wrote:
Gael Varoquaux wrote:
a second Python
needs to be installed on top of the system Python to add modules to it.
Maybe the system should come with two pythons installed,
one for use by the
Hi Ian,
recently I reported this problem to you:
[...] here at our university, python (as
well as hundreds of other software packages) is installed in a shared NFS
tree with a clear separation of --prefix and --exec-prefix, i.e. all
platform-specific stuff goes into the according
Hans Meine wrote:
Hi Ian,
recently I reported this problem to you:
[...] here at our university, python (as
well as hundreds of other software packages) is installed in a shared NFS
tree with a clear separation of --prefix and --exec-prefix, i.e. all
platform-specific stuff goes into the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Barry Warsaw napsal(a):
| On Apr 13, 2008, at 8:04 AM, Gael Varoquaux wrote:
| On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 07:59:21AM -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote:
| On Apr 12, 2008, at 9:41 PM, Stephen Waterbury wrote:
| I used to always set up my own Python[s] in
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008, Greg Ewing wrote:
John J Lee wrote:
If you have a network connection, about the only reason for not wanting an
app to be installed is that it has changed the behaviour of your system
somehow, just by being in the installed state.
If you have a continuous high-speed
Sorry for breaking up the thread. I wasn't subscribed to the list (now
I am) and apparently I stopped being CC'd at some point, so I'll have to
sum up several things and address them here.
1) I agree that system scripts should use the system python
(whatever that is defined to mean - for now it
Gael Varoquaux wrote:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 01:30:14PM +1200, Greg Ewing wrote:
Maybe the system should come with two pythons installed,
What you propose resembles very much to what MacOSX does... I see on the
different scientific-Python-related mailing lists how users have
difficulties
David Cournapeau wrote:
what is needed is a stable API for the used packages.
That's a nice ideal to aim for, but it's only achievable
for old and mature packages.
One could change the package name every time the API
changes, but then *any* change to the API would make the
package unusable by
Cliff Wells wrote:
I think the convention is major.minor where minor releases are
backwards-compatible and major releases aren't expected to be (but might
be).
AFAIK, that's the general rule, but python itself does not respect this
convention, so I don't see this happening for python
11 matches
Mail list logo
