On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 06:59:31PM -0500, KP wrote:

I'm not sure where the issue is, but when I specify a namespace_package in the setup.py file, I can indeed have multiple packages with the same base (foo.bar, foo.blah, etc...). The files all install in to the same directory. It drops the foo/__init__.py that would be doing the extend_path, and instead adds a ".pth" file that is a bit over my head.

The problem is that it does not seem to traverse the entire sys.path to find multiple foo packages.

Does every foo.x package specify namespace_packages=['foo']? Do they all ship an identical foo/__init__.py with import pkg_resources pkg_resources.declare_namespace(__name__) ? AFAIU you need both things in every package, if you want to use namespace packages.

If I do not specify namespace_packages and instead just use the pkgutil.extend_path, then this seems to allow the packages to be in multiple places in the sys.path.

Is there something additional for the namespace_package that i need to specify in order for all of the sys.path to be checked?

I'm using 18.5 setuptools....but I am not sure if this somehow ties in to wheel/pip, since I'm using that for the actual install.

Marius Gedminas -- Give a man a computer program and you give him a headache, but teach him to program computers and you give him the power to create headaches for others for the rest of his life... -- R. B. Forest

Just to recap: 1. if you don't put namespace_packages in the setup.py, then it will uninstall the shared __init__.py when you uninstall any of the packages 2. If you put namespace_packages, then there is a pth file created for the shared directory (site-packages/foo) and no foo/__init__.py is created (even if it is in your package) #2 - breaks things like : doing a source checkout that participates in this namespace_package...If you do this then only the lib/site-packages/foo/<modules> are importable Solution appears to be: On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 7:17 AM, KP wrote:

yes, both of those statements are true.

However, with the namespace_packages = ['foo'], the lib\site-packages\foo\__init__.py does not get installed (even though it is in the source tree). Instead there's just a dir with "foo/bar/__init__.py" and "foo/blah/__init__.py". I will try to look in the "wheel" side of things next I guess. Perhaps pip is doing something since it seems to install even source distributables by first converting to a wheel.

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 1:38 AM, Marius Gedminas wrote:

...

...

I'm not sure where the issue is, but when I specify a namespace_package in the setup.py file, I can indeed have multiple packages with the same

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 06:59:31PM -0500, KP wrote: base

...

(foo.bar, foo.blah, etc...). The files all install in to the same directory. It drops the foo/__init__.py that would be doing the extend_path, and instead adds a ".pth" file that is a bit over my head.

The problem is that it does not seem to traverse the entire sys.path to find multiple foo packages.

Does every foo.x package specify namespace_packages=['foo']?

Do they all ship an identical foo/__init__.py with

import pkg_resources pkg_resources.declare_namespace(__name__)

?

AFAIU you need both things in every package, if you want to use namespace packages.

...

If I do not specify namespace_packages and instead just use the pkgutil.extend_path, then this seems to allow the packages to be in multiple places in the sys.path.

Is there something additional for the namespace_package that i need to specify in order for all of the sys.path to be checked?

I'm using 18.5 setuptools....but I am not sure if this somehow ties in to wheel/pip, since I'm using that for the actual install.

Marius Gedminas -- Give a man a computer program and you give him a headache, but teach him to program computers and you give him the power to create headaches for others for the rest of his life... -- R. B. Forest

_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig

Hi KP,

On Dec 1, 2015, at 4:17 AM, KP wrote:

yes, both of those statements are true.

However, with the namespace_packages = [‘foo'], the lib\site-packages\foo\__init__.py does not get installed (even though it is in the source tree).

This is exactly how it’s supposed to behave for namespace packages. The *.pth file will take care of providing info about your namespace to the python importer.

Instead there’s just a dir with "foo/bar/__init__.py" and "foo/blah/__init__.py".

These are regular packages. Hence they preserve their __init__.py. Hope this helps. Regards, Zvezdan

I will try to look in the "wheel" side of things next I guess. Perhaps pip is doing something since it seems to install even source distributables by first converting to a wheel.

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 1:38 AM, Marius Gedminas mailto:marius@gedmin.as> wrote: On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 06:59:31PM -0500, KP wrote:

...

I'm not sure where the issue is, but when I specify a namespace_package in the setup.py file, I can indeed have multiple packages with the same base (foo.bar, foo.blah, etc...). The files all install in to the same directory. It drops the foo/__init__.py that would be doing the extend_path, and instead adds a ".pth" file that is a bit over my head.

The problem is that it does not seem to traverse the entire sys.path to find multiple foo packages.

Does every foo.x package specify namespace_packages=['foo']?

Do they all ship an identical foo/__init__.py with

import pkg_resources pkg_resources.declare_namespace(__name__)

?

AFAIU you need both things in every package, if you want to use namespace packages.

...

If I do not specify namespace_packages and instead just use the pkgutil.extend_path, then this seems to allow the packages to be in multiple places in the sys.path.

Is there something additional for the namespace_package that i need to specify in order for all of the sys.path to be checked?

I'm using 18.5 setuptools....but I am not sure if this somehow ties in to wheel/pip, since I'm using that for the actual install.

Marius Gedminas -- Give a man a computer program and you give him a headache, but teach him to program computers and you give him the power to create headaches for others for the rest of his life... -- R. B. Forest

_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org mailto:Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig

_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig

It appears that the .pth file only adds the lib/site-packages/foo/ module to the path, so that part _works_ but that seems to only work for modules installed in to lib/site-packages. So if I do something like: foo.bar having this setup.py setup(name="foo.bar", version=str(__version__), packages=["foo","foo.bar"], namespace_packages=['foo'], ) To go with this package there's a couple of possible use cases: 1. --- simple pth file point to another participant in this name space package -- But I also have a pth file with: c:\test And the directory contents of C:\Test are: c:\test\foo\__init__.py # and this as the typical pkgutil.extend_path c:\test\foo\more\__init__.py The import mechanisms only find the "foo.bar" I installed and not the foo.more 2. -- is similar to #1, but maybe slightly more accepted normal...assume the same "foo.bar", and the setup.py provide. If I'm working on another "foo.more" package that participates in this namespace package, then an pip install from the source will _not_ work. The workaround I posted earlier (an additional package that is NOT a namespace package, and is needed to force an __init__.py to exist in lib/site-packages/foo). This works, but it feels like a bit of a hack, and that the the "-pkg.pth" created for foo.bar should have worked. (work = allow namespace packages in multiple directories that are in sys.path) On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 12:17 AM, Zvezdan Petkovic

wrote:

Hi KP,

On Dec 1, 2015, at 4:17 AM, KP wrote:

yes, both of those statements are true.

However, with the namespace_packages = [‘foo'], the lib\site-packages\foo\__init__.py does not get installed (even though it is in the source tree).

This is exactly how it’s supposed to behave for namespace packages. The *.pth file will take care of providing info about your namespace to the python importer.

Instead there’s just a dir with "foo/bar/__init__.py" and "foo/blah/__init__.py".

These are regular packages. Hence they preserve their __init__.py. Hope this helps.

Regards,

Zvezdan

I will try to look in the "wheel" side of things next I guess. Perhaps pip is doing something since it seems to install even source distributables by first converting to a wheel.

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 1:38 AM, Marius Gedminas wrote:

...

...

I'm not sure where the issue is, but when I specify a namespace_package in the setup.py file, I can indeed have multiple packages with the same

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 06:59:31PM -0500, KP wrote: base

...

(foo.bar, foo.blah, etc...). The files all install in to the same directory. It drops the foo/__init__.py that would be doing the extend_path, and instead adds a ".pth" file that is a bit over my head.

The problem is that it does not seem to traverse the entire sys.path to find multiple foo packages.

Does every foo.x package specify namespace_packages=['foo']?

Do they all ship an identical foo/__init__.py with

import pkg_resources pkg_resources.declare_namespace(__name__)

?

AFAIU you need both things in every package, if you want to use namespace packages.

...

If I do not specify namespace_packages and instead just use the pkgutil.extend_path, then this seems to allow the packages to be in multiple places in the sys.path.

Is there something additional for the namespace_package that i need to specify in order for all of the sys.path to be checked?

I'm using 18.5 setuptools....but I am not sure if this somehow ties in to wheel/pip, since I'm using that for the actual install.

Marius Gedminas -- Give a man a computer program and you give him a headache, but teach him to program computers and you give him the power to create headaches for others for the rest of his life... -- R. B. Forest

_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig

_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig

It looks like you are trying to find a workaround for the problem that perhaps is not a problem at all if you use the standard approach properly.

I'm definitely _trying_ to use a standard approach...That is why I am here posting. Put simply this seems like a valid use case:

pip install foo.bar pip install -e svn+http://

Even if both tools have the namespace_package foo, the "foo.more" will not properly import. How is this going against standard approaches? On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 9:54 PM, Zvezdan Petkovic wrote:

Hi KP,

Maybe I didn’t follow the thread from the beginning, but your use case is not clear to me.

On Dec 1, 2015, at 1:31 PM, KP wrote:

(sorry for the stupid previous early send)

Just to recap:

1. if you don’t put namespace_packages in the setup.py, then it will uninstall the shared __init__.py when you uninstall any of the packages

Right. You need to declare the namespace in setup.py.

2. If you put namespace_packages, then there is a pth file created for the shared directory (site-packages/foo) and no foo/__init__.py is created (even if it is in your package)

Correct. That is exactly the behavior that’s expected. There can be many packages in the namespace (e.g., zope.* or zope.app.*) and they all share the namespace, but none of them owns that __init__.py. That’s why it’s not installed there and is replaced with a *.pth file.

#2 - breaks things like : doing a source checkout that participates in this namespace_package…If you do this then only the lib/site-packages/foo/<modules> are importable

Again, it’s not clear what are you referring to? Are you doing a source checkout over your installed packages / virtual environment? I sure hope not. You can use pip —editable for adding your source checkouts to virtual environment or installed packages.

If you use build tools (such as zc.buildout) and install your packages, they will end up over several egg / wheel directories “parallel” to each other, but the proper namespace declaration will ensure that they are all importable. You cannot even do the source checkout over such an installation.

It looks like you are trying to find a workaround for the problem that perhaps is not a problem at all if you use the standard approach properly.

Solution appears to be:

create a standalone “foo" package that has ONLY the shared __init__.py, and do NOT set "namespace_packages" .

No, that is not the solution. That’s a sure way to break the namespace in the egg/wheel based installations.

This seems to associate the __init__.py with the “foo” tool, so that only when you uninstall the "foo" tool does the __init__.py get uninstalled.

Why do you worry so much about uninstalling __init__.py. If it’s not there (and it isn’t with properly declared namespaces) why does it matter?

It also has the shared __init__.py in lib/site-packages, so it seems that enables the other namespace packages that are source checkouts or added to path via other methods.

What other methods? The key here is to make decision how do you want to install your packages? Pick one and use it instead fighting the tooling.

Hopefully this works long term, and maybe is useful to someone else out there….

I doubt it, It’s an incorrect advice.

Zvezdan

Thanks,

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:29 PM, KP wrote:

...

Just to recap:

1. if you don't put namespace_packages in the setup.py, then it will uninstall the shared __init__.py when you uninstall any of the packages 2. If you put namespace_packages, then there is a pth file created for the shared directory (site-packages/foo) and no foo/__init__.py is created (even if it is in your package) #2 - breaks things like : doing a source checkout that participates in this namespace_package...If you do this then only the lib/site-packages/foo/<modules> are importable

Solution appears to be:

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 7:17 AM, KP wrote:

...

yes, both of those statements are true.

However, with the namespace_packages = ['foo'], the lib\site-packages\foo\__init__.py does not get installed (even though it is in the source tree). Instead there's just a dir with "foo/bar/__init__.py" and "foo/blah/__init__.py". I will try to look in the "wheel" side of things next I guess. Perhaps pip is doing something since it seems to install even source distributables by first converting to a wheel.

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 1:38 AM, Marius Gedminas wrote:

...

...

I'm not sure where the issue is, but when I specify a namespace_package in the setup.py file, I can indeed have multiple packages with the same

...

(foo.bar, foo.blah, etc...). The files all install in to the same directory. It drops the foo/__init__.py that would be doing the extend_path, and instead adds a ".pth" file that is a bit over my

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 06:59:31PM -0500, KP wrote: base head.

...

The problem is that it does not seem to traverse the entire sys.path

to

...

find multiple foo packages.

Does every foo.x package specify namespace_packages=['foo']?

Do they all ship an identical foo/__init__.py with

import pkg_resources pkg_resources.declare_namespace(__name__)

?

AFAIU you need both things in every package, if you want to use namespace packages.

...

If I do not specify namespace_packages and instead just use the pkgutil.extend_path, then this seems to allow the packages to be in multiple places in the sys.path.

Is there something additional for the namespace_package that i need to specify in order for all of the sys.path to be checked?

I'm using 18.5 setuptools....but I am not sure if this somehow ties in to wheel/pip, since I'm using that for the actual install.

Marius Gedminas -- Give a man a computer program and you give him a headache, but teach him to program computers and you give him the power to create headaches for others for the rest of his life... -- R. B. Forest

_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig

_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig

Zvezdan Petkovic writes:

Hi KP,

...

On Dec 2, 2015, at 7:00 PM, KP wrote:

...

It looks like you are trying to find a workaround for the problem that perhaps is not a problem at all if you use the standard approach properly.

I'm definitely _trying_ to use a standard approach...That is why I am here posting. Put simply this seems like a valid use case:

...

pip install foo.bar pip install -e svn+http://

Even if both tools have the namespace_package foo, the "foo.more" will not properly import.

How is this going against standard approaches?

I don’t know. Without seeing the source code for these packages (which Marius already asked for) everything is hypothetical. All I know is that I’m using namespaces successfully for over a decade now and never had the need to work around them.

Show us the code. We may be able to help better if we can try and reproduce. Otherwise, it’s hard.

It seems that KP case is either https://github.com/pypa/pip/issues/3160 or https://github.com/pypa/pip/issues/3, isn't it? Both come with sample code that demonstrate the problem. ciao, lele. -- nickname: Lele Gaifax | Quando vivrò di quello che ho pensato ieri real: Emanuele Gaifas | comincerò ad aver paura di chi mi copia. lele@metapensiero.it | -- Fortunato Depero, 1929.

Hi Kevin, Sorry for not being able to respond to this earlier. I have time only in the evening.

On Dec 3, 2015, at 3:57 AM, KP wrote:

Yes, the https://github.com/pypa/pip/issues/3 https://github.com/pypa/pip/issues/3 definitely sounds like my issue. Seems there is some concern over the nspkg.pth there as well. It seems taht the nspkg.pth is a fine idea to replace the install of the __init__.py, but that it just doesn’t work to fully extend the locations in which a namespace can reside.

I now understand what the issue is and can help perhaps with some advice below.

Either way, there a few other workarounds posted there as well, I will check them out to see if any of them are more palatable than the one I posted here.

You need to make foo.bar-1.0.0-py2.7-nspkg.pth look like this: import sys, types, os, pkgutil; p = os.path.join(sys._getframe(1).f_locals['sitedir'], *('foo',)); ie = os.path.exists(os.path.join(p,'__init__.py')); m = not ie and sys.modules.setdefault('foo',types.ModuleType('foo')); mp = (m or []) and m.__dict__.setdefault('__path__',[]); (p not in mp) and mp.append(p); mp[:] = m and pkgutil.extend_path(mp, 'foo') or mp Notice the difference from the default in use of pkgutil.extend_path() that helps with editable packages. How to make this happen automatically is explained below.

Thanks Lele for sending that link!

-Kevin

I also want to thank Lele for pointing out the possible cause of your issues. Now, I’d like to separate two things here: 1. Defining namespaces correctly — that should be done as we talked before in the standard way. 2. Issue with the tooling — in this case pip is the tool that causes issues. Let’s talk about it more. These are the reasons I didn’t recognize Kevin’s issue. :-) - The namespaces work great when defined correctly (#1 above) with zc.buildout and other tools. There are good open-source build systems out there that take care of namespaces properly. - When one makes a good custom build system, it can fix the pip deficiencies too. For example, the build system specifically used in a company, team, … So, my advice is to: 1. Make a custom distutils Distribution extension, for example, MyDistribution (or some better name) (a) make custom install_egg_info class that overrides either: - two templates for pth files (for newer versions of setuptools) or - install_namespaces method (for older versions of setuptools) (b) override get_command_class method in the MyDistribution class with your own install_egg_info 2. Build this package and install it. 3. Use distclass=MyDistribution in your foo package setup.py (import it from your package). Using this approach everything will work for every of your packages automatically. I attached your original code from foo_test.zip and added to it a minimal mydist package + a sample __init__.py file that I think you should use in your namespace packages (if you want). Kevin, you can try this by doing the following: - create a virtual environment - source bin/activate - go to mydist package and run “python setup.py sdist” - pip install /path/to/mydist-1.0.0.tar.gz - go to your foo_bar package and run “python setup.py sdist” - pip install /path/to/foo.bar-1.0.0.tar.gz - pip install -e /path/to/foo_more - start the python interpreter in your virtual environment - confirm that it works >>> import foo.bar foo.bar imported >>> import foo.more foo.more imported I know that this is not a fix for pip, but it is a generic solution that I hope helps you. Perhaps I should make a little better example (better names, better __init__.py, …) and post it as a little project on GitHub that people can refer to. All the best, Zvezdan

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 3:19 AM, Lele Gaifax mailto:lele@metapensiero.it> wrote: Zvezdan Petkovic mailto:zvezdanpetkovic@gmail.com> writes:

...

Hi KP,

...

On Dec 2, 2015, at 7:00 PM, KP mailto:patter001@gmail.com> wrote:

...

It looks like you are trying to find a workaround for the problem that perhaps is not a problem at all if you use the standard approach properly.

I'm definitely _trying_ to use a standard approach...That is why I am here posting. Put simply this seems like a valid use case:

...

pip install foo.bar pip install -e svn+http://

Even if both tools have the namespace_package foo, the "foo.more" will not properly import.

How is this going against standard approaches?

I don’t know. Without seeing the source code for these packages (which Marius already asked for) everything is hypothetical. All I know is that I’m using namespaces successfully for over a decade now and never had the need to work around them.

Show us the code. We may be able to help better if we can try and reproduce. Otherwise, it’s hard.

It seems that KP case is either https://github.com/pypa/pip/issues/3160 https://github.com/pypa/pip/issues/3160 or https://github.com/pypa/pip/issues/3 https://github.com/pypa/pip/issues/3, isn't it? Both come with sample code that demonstrate the problem.

ciao, lele. -- nickname: Lele Gaifax | Quando vivrò di quello che ho pensato ieri real: Emanuele Gaifas | comincerò ad aver paura di chi mi copia. lele@metapensiero.it mailto:lele@metapensiero.it | -- Fortunato Depero, 1929.

_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org mailto:Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig

_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig

Lele Gaifax writes:

I will try to make a branch of https://github.com/lelit/pipinstall-e_bugex injecting your solution to see if it works in that case too.

No, it doesn't appear making a difference, in that case. Thanks anyway! ciao, lele. -- nickname: Lele Gaifax | Quando vivrò di quello che ho pensato ieri real: Emanuele Gaifas | comincerò ad aver paura di chi mi copia. lele@metapensiero.it | -- Fortunato Depero, 1929.

Zvezdan Petkovic writes:

Did you try that?

Yes, indeed that way it works, an all my packages do that. But, as explained by the https://github.com/pypa/pip/issues/3160 issue, I would like to use a shallower tree for some of them. Thanks for taking a look! ciao, lele. -- nickname: Lele Gaifax | Quando vivrò di quello che ho pensato ieri real: Emanuele Gaifas | comincerò ad aver paura di chi mi copia. lele@metapensiero.it | -- Fortunato Depero, 1929.

I apologize for bringing up this old thread again, but I was working on another namespace package, and going through this posted BKM again. First off I noticed I did not give a good Thank You for posting the fix, my apologies there. I noticed the original issue (https://github.com/pypa/pip/issues/3) was still open, and was wondering, what is the downfall for the new .pth file that was posted. Any reason that the proposed fix could not be permanently added to setuptools? On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 12:31 AM, Zvezdan Petkovic

wrote:

Hi Kevin,

Sorry for not being able to respond to this earlier. I have time only in the evening.

On Dec 3, 2015, at 3:57 AM, KP wrote:

Yes, the https://github.com/pypa/pip/issues/3 definitely sounds like my issue. Seems there is some concern over the nspkg.pth there as well. It seems taht the nspkg.pth is a fine idea to replace the install of the __init__.py, but that it just doesn’t work to fully extend the locations in which a namespace can reside.

I now understand what the issue is and can help perhaps with some advice below.

Either way, there a few other workarounds posted there as well, I will check them out to see if any of them are more palatable than the one I posted here.

You need to make foo.bar-1.0.0-py2.7-nspkg.pth look like this:

import sys, types, os, pkgutil; p = os.path.join(sys._getframe(1).f_locals['sitedir'], *('foo',)); ie = os.path.exists(os.path.join(p,'__init__.py')); m = not ie and sys.modules.setdefault('foo',types.ModuleType('foo')); mp = (m or []) and m.__dict__.setdefault('__path__',[]); (p not in mp) and mp.append(p); mp[:] = m and pkgutil.extend_path(mp, 'foo') or mp

Notice the difference from the default in use of pkgutil.extend_path() that helps with editable packages.

How to make this happen automatically is explained below.

Thanks Lele for sending that link!

-Kevin

I also want to thank Lele for pointing out the possible cause of your issues.

Now, I’d like to separate two things here:

1. Defining namespaces correctly — that should be done as we talked before in the standard way.

2. Issue with the tooling — in this case pip is the tool that causes issues.

Let’s talk about it more. These are the reasons I didn’t recognize Kevin’s issue. :-)

- The namespaces work great when defined correctly (#1 above) with zc.buildout and other tools. There are good open-source build systems out there that take care of namespaces properly.

- When one makes a good custom build system, it can fix the pip deficiencies too. For example, the build system specifically used in a company, team, …

So, my advice is to:

1. Make a custom distutils Distribution extension, for example, MyDistribution (or some better name)

(a) make custom install_egg_info class that overrides either:

- two templates for pth files (for newer versions of setuptools) or - install_namespaces method (for older versions of setuptools)

(b) override get_command_class method in the MyDistribution class with your own install_egg_info

2. Build this package and install it.

3. Use distclass=MyDistribution in your foo package setup.py (import it from your package).

Using this approach everything will work for every of your packages automatically.

I attached your original code from foo_test.zip and added to it a minimal mydist package + a sample __init__.py file that I think you should use in your namespace packages (if you want).

Kevin, you can try this by doing the following:

- create a virtual environment - source bin/activate - go to mydist package and run “python setup.py sdist” - pip install /path/to/mydist-1.0.0.tar.gz - go to your foo_bar package and run “python setup.py sdist” - pip install /path/to/foo.bar-1.0.0.tar.gz - pip install -e /path/to/foo_more - start the python interpreter in your virtual environment - confirm that it works

...

...

...

import foo.bar foo.bar imported import foo.more foo.more imported

I know that this is not a fix for pip, but it is a generic solution that I hope helps you.

Perhaps I should make a little better example (better names, better __init__.py, …) and post it as a little project on GitHub that people can refer to.

All the best,

Zvezdan

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 3:19 AM, Lele Gaifax wrote:

...

Zvezdan Petkovic writes:

...

Hi KP,

...

On Dec 2, 2015, at 7:00 PM, KP wrote:

...

It looks like you are trying to find a workaround for the problem that perhaps is not a problem at all if you use the standard approach properly.

I'm definitely _trying_ to use a standard approach...That is why I am here posting. Put simply this seems like a valid use case:

...

pip install foo.bar pip install -e svn+http://

Even if both tools have the namespace_package foo, the "foo.more" will not properly import.

How is this going against standard approaches?

I don’t know. Without seeing the source code for these packages (which Marius already asked for) everything is hypothetical. All I know is that I’m using namespaces successfully for over a decade now and never had the need to work around them.

Show us the code. We may be able to help better if we can try and reproduce. Otherwise, it’s hard.

It seems that KP case is either https://github.com/pypa/pip/issues/3160 or https://github.com/pypa/pip/issues/3, isn't it? Both come with sample code that demonstrate the problem.

ciao, lele. -- nickname: Lele Gaifax | Quando vivrò di quello che ho pensato ieri real: Emanuele Gaifas | comincerò ad aver paura di chi mi copia. lele@metapensiero.it | -- Fortunato Depero, 1929.

_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig

_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig