Phillip J. Eby wrote:
At 11:24 PM 6/25/2007 -0700, primco wrote:
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
At 05:45 PM 6/25/2007 -0700, Ben Bangert wrote:
Disclaimer: I don't work at Google, just talk to people who do.
I know some people at Google that would like to use Pylons there, unfortunately this isn't quite possible as several parts of Pylons require setuptools entry points. While setuptools can be installed, due to Google's packaging system the run-time setuptools environment has no entry points present, thus it falls down. I'm not sure how many other companies might also have their own packaging systems that also incur this problem, but I'm wondering if this can be remedied somehow.
Just make sure that packages' .egg-info directory is installed alongside the code; setuptools will do the rest. See also:
Thanks for the answers. That's what my messing around told me but I wanted to check. On a related note, and to finish of the dismantling of setuptools package management, how do I give the setuptools package itself this treatment? Some of the things I'd like to do: not use any .pth files for any packages not change site.py or sys.path (PYTHONPATH is ok) at runtime Avoid the included site.py that is generated by installing setuptools itself as single version externally managed. It has a "__boot()" function that does some path management. What I've done is "setup.py install --root..." setuptools from the source. This made a site.py for me which I just left out of site-packages and it all seems to work. I was able to run Pylons (a pretty good setuptools workout I think) with all dependencies installed in the same unmanaged manner. Did I just get lucky or should I assume that I've safely disabled the package management features of setuptools while still keeping some dynamic things like entrypoints and find_packages working? davep -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Using-setuptools-entry-points-at-Google-%28and-other-p... Sent from the Python - distutils-sig mailing list archive at Nabble.com.