specifying the shipping of subpackages without their superpackages
Hi, i recently noticed that shipping a package like 'foo.bar' without also shipping 'foo' seems to work fine in distutils. since that would be nice way to ship packages within a namespace i want to sugest specifying the fact that it works and to clarify how it works. Regards Ronny
Ronny Pfannschmidt wrote:
i recently noticed that shipping a package like 'foo.bar' without also shipping 'foo' seems to work fine in distutils.
since that would be nice way to ship packages within a namespace i want to sugest specifying the fact that it works and to clarify how it works.
There's already for PEP for namespace packages... Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Batch Processing & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk
On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 13:03 +0000, Chris Withers wrote:
Ronny Pfannschmidt wrote:
i recently noticed that shipping a package like 'foo.bar' without also shipping 'foo' seems to work fine in distutils.
since that would be nice way to ship packages within a namespace i want to sugest specifying the fact that it works and to clarify how it works.
There's already for PEP for namespace packages...
Yes, but that only deals with package namespacing in terms of the import system, not a single word about how things get installed within namespaces. The current way is to ship dozens of virtually empty __init__.py files in the superpackages (i.e. only the call to pkgutil in order to extend __path__) I consider that unfortunate and undesirable. I see a clear need to add convient names at the package level and the current way to deal with namespaces cant handle that. The ability to install subpackages while ignoring superpackages is a way to archieve that, cause nothing will overwrite the superpackages __init__.py. So it may be subject to usefull additions beyond the mere __path__ extension, Ronny
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Ronny Pfannschmidt <Ronny.Pfannschmidt@gmx.de> wrote:
On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 13:03 +0000, Chris Withers wrote:
Ronny Pfannschmidt wrote:
i recently noticed that shipping a package like 'foo.bar' without also shipping 'foo' seems to work fine in distutils.
since that would be nice way to ship packages within a namespace i want to sugest specifying the fact that it works and to clarify how it works.
There's already for PEP for namespace packages...
Yes, but that only deals with package namespacing in terms of the import system, not a single word about how things get installed within namespaces.
The current way is to ship dozens of virtually empty __init__.py files in the superpackages (i.e. only the call to pkgutil in order to extend __path__)
I consider that unfortunate and undesirable.
I see a clear need to add convient names at the package level and the current way to deal with namespaces cant handle that.
The ability to install subpackages while ignoring superpackages is a way to archieve that, cause nothing will overwrite the superpackages __init__.py. So it may be subject to usefull additions beyond the mere __path__ extension,
I think the namespace PEP lacks of some usage examples, for these use case: how do I define code in foo.bar.baz, and how do I describe it so Distutils installs it I am cc'ing Martin (he's not in distutils-sig IIRC) Regards Tarek
participants (3)
-
Chris Withers -
Ronny Pfannschmidt -
Tarek Ziadé