<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
On 3/23/17 3:14 PM, Robert Collins wrote:<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJ3HoZ2EWH893_J=PO-3fcF4fe+PtnqJCnN5B5eHVsLTkWDyVw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 24 March 2017 at 04:59, INADA Naoki <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:songofacandy@gmail.com"><songofacandy@gmail.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">And this issue is relating to it too: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://bugs.python.org/issue29716">http://bugs.python.org/issue29716</a>
In short, "namespace package" is for make it possible to `pip install
foo_bar foo_baz`,
when foo_bar provides `foo.bar` and foo_baz provides `foo.baz`
package. (foo is namespace package).
If unittests searches normal directly, it may walk deep into very
large tree containing
millions of directories. I don't like it.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
That is a risk, OTOH I think the failure to do what folk expect is a
bigger risk.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
The issue here is, what do folks expect? PEP 420 is pretty clear on
its purpose. The first sentence of the abstract: <br>
<br>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
> Namespace packages are a mechanism for splitting a single
Python package
across multiple directories on disk.<br>
<br>
And the first sentence of the specification:<br>
<br>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
> Regular packages will continue to have an <tt class="docutils
literal"> __init__.py </tt> and will
reside in a single directory. <br>
<br>
PEP 420 is not meant to make all __init__.py files optional. It has
a specific purpose. These proposed changes are not in support of
that purpose. We should not bend over backwards to support getting
rid of __init__.py files just because people don't like empty
__init__.py files. That's not what PEP 420 is for.<br>
<br>
--Ned.<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>