On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Robert Kern <robert.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 13:50, Brian Granger <elliso...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Ondrej, > >>> However, allowing people to create packages and host it under the >>> sympy github organization is a great idea, that is for sure. To have a >>> well defined one module for one thing, e.g. let's say the quantum >>> stuff. E.g. not Ondrej's quantum, Brian's quantum, but SymPy's >>> quantum, part of the SymPy community. For now, I would keep it as part >>> of the sympy repository, it makes things easier, but later on, yes, we >>> can definitely split it. >> >> This sounds like a great plan. I will play around with pkgutils to >> see if we can do this without using setuptools. > > I'm not sure he is suggesting that they be part of a sympy namespace > package, just that their github repositories can be hosted under the
I was not expressing an opinion whether or not to have modules as part of the sympy namespace. > sympy github organization. After pushing for scikits, I think umbrella > namespace packages (distinct from organization-owned namespace > packages like enthought) are more trouble than they're worth, whether > implemented with setuptools or pkgutils. Given that, I would simply have modules outside of the sympy namespace, and then there should be no problem and no need for pkgutils/setuptools. Ondrej -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy" group. To post to this group, send email to sympy@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sympy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sympy?hl=en.
