>> My question is, shoudn't it be enough to set PYTHONPATH and everything
>> automagically to work then? Is there some work done on this for python
>> 3.0 or 2.6 perhaps?
>
> I'm working on a PEP for a per user site dir for 2.6 and 3.0
great .. can't hardly wait.
--
damjan
--
http://mail.pytho
On 11 Jan, 21:44, Goldfish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What about security holes, like a malicious version of socket getting
> downloaded into a user's directory, and overriding the default, safe
> version? Don't forget that in your PEP.
As Christian points out, there are various exploitable we
Goldfish wrote:
> What about security holes, like a malicious version of socket getting
> downloaded into a user's directory, and overriding the default, safe
> version? Don't forget that in your PEP.
A malicious piece of software has already hundreds of way to overwrite
modules. It could add a py
On Jan 11, 11:45 am, Christian Heimes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Damjan wrote:
> > My question is, shoudn't it be enough to set PYTHONPATH and everything
> > automagically to work then? Is there some work done on this for python 3.0
> > or 2.6 perhaps?
>
> I'm working on a PEP for a per user site
Damjan wrote:
> My question is, shoudn't it be enough to set PYTHONPATH and everything
> automagically to work then? Is there some work done on this for python 3.0
> or 2.6 perhaps?
I'm working on a PEP for a per user site dir for 2.6 and 3.0
Christian
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo
There are several attempts to allow python to work with per user (or even
per session) 'site-packages' like virtualpython / workingenv / virtualenv.
But they all have their own shortcomings and quirks.
My question is, shoudn't it be enough to set PYTHONPATH and everything
automagically to work th
