[sqlalchemy] Re: new setuptools vs local SA copy

2007-06-04 Thread Paul Kippes
I found the thread about PYTHONPATH--interesting. It does seem that eggs are not only preventing the expected behavior, but they are also preventing the documented behavior. However, I don't think that using eggs is the best choice for a fast progressing library like SQLAlchemy--especially with

[sqlalchemy] Re: new setuptools vs local SA copy

2007-06-04 Thread Michael Bayer
On Jun 4, 1:58 pm, Paul Kippes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I found the thread about PYTHONPATH--interesting. It does seem that eggs are not only preventing the expected behavior, but they are also preventing the documented behavior. However, I don't think that using eggs is the best choice

[sqlalchemy] Re: new setuptools vs local SA copy

2007-06-04 Thread Mike Orr
On 6/4/07, Paul Kippes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I found the thread about PYTHONPATH--interesting. It does seem that eggs are not only preventing the expected behavior, but they are also preventing the documented behavior. However, I don't think that using eggs is the best choice for a fast

[sqlalchemy] Re: new setuptools vs local SA copy

2007-06-04 Thread Michael Bayer
On Jun 4, 2007, at 3:35 PM, Mike Orr wrote: On 6/4/07, Paul Kippes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I found the thread about PYTHONPATH--interesting. It does seem that eggs are not only preventing the expected behavior, but they are also preventing the documented behavior. However, I don't

[sqlalchemy] Re: new setuptools vs local SA copy

2007-02-09 Thread Michael Bayer
I have a directory on my laptop which looks like this: ./sa026 ./sa027 ./sa028 ./sa030 ./sa031 ... I set PYTHONPATH to ./lib. I change into each directory and run a script that id like to compare between versions. No setup.py develop is required...i dont want to install anything anywhere. I

[sqlalchemy] Re: new setuptools vs local SA copy

2007-02-09 Thread Kumar McMillan
python setup.py develop [1] doesn't install anything. It makes a link to a directory of source code, just like you are doing w/ the pythonpath, and you only have to run it once. either method is accomplishing the same thing. I just find workingenv very easy to use and wanted to share since

[sqlalchemy] Re: new setuptools vs local SA copy

2007-02-08 Thread Kumar McMillan
put a file -pythonpath.pth into your site_packages folder: import os, sys; sys.__egginsert=len(os.environ.get('PYTHONPATH', '').split(os.pathsep)); duly noted for future usage _when_ i meet an egg. workingenv, as Simon King mentioned, is the way to go. At my company we share a dev

[sqlalchemy] Re: new setuptools vs local SA copy

2007-02-07 Thread Sébastien LELONG
[...] I challenged him to name *any* scenario where an administrator would want a local-environment-based PYTHONPATH to be overridden by an application-wide configuration and he didnt reply to that one. he sees it as a if youre using .eggs, then you must accept that PYTHONPATH only points

[sqlalchemy] Re: new setuptools vs local SA copy

2007-02-07 Thread svilen
u mean eggs will override pythonpath? that's bullshit! one more reasone for me to hate eggs... be them cockroach' or python ones... as I have like 12 different SA directories which id like to jump between without going through a distinct install for each one, im a big fan of PYTHONPATH, and

[sqlalchemy] Re: new setuptools vs local SA copy

2007-02-06 Thread King Simon-NFHD78
Rick Morrison wrote: I keep two versions of SA installed here, one is a stable version installed in the Python site-packages folder, and one is current trunk with some local patches for testing. I used to be able to run tests and programs using the local version by just inserting the

[sqlalchemy] Re: new setuptools vs local SA copy

2007-02-06 Thread Michael Bayer
as I have like 12 different SA directories which id like to jump between without going through a distinct install for each one, im a big fan of PYTHONPATH, and after futile-ly arguing with PJE that plain libraries on PYTHONPATH should take precedence over installed .eggs (he strongly feels that