On Jul 24, 2010, at 11:59 PM, schmir@gmail.com wrote:
Barry Warsaw <barry@python.org> writes:
On Jul 23, 2010, at 01:46 PM, schmir@gmail.com wrote:
Doesn't anybody else think this is lost work for very little gain? My /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages directory consumes 200MB on disk. I couldn't care less if my /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages consumed the same amount of disk space...
Right, you probably don't care now that your extension modules live in foo.so so it probably won't make much difference if they were named foo-blahblah.so, as long as they import. :)
Most of the time it won't make much difference, right. But I can assure you, that it will bite some people and there is some code to be adapted.
Do you have concrete examples? Without that it's just speculation I can't do much to address. Is the problem big or small? Easy to work around or not? "Change is bad" isn't a constructive argument. ;)
If you use Debian or Ubuntu though, it'll be a win for you by allow us to make Python support much more robust.
I'd much prefer to have cleanly separated environments by having separate directories for my python modules. Sharing the source code and complicating things will not lead to increased robustness.
That's fine, but it's not the way Debian/Ubuntu works today. PEP 3149 adoption will definitely remove significant complication for deploying multiple Python versions at the same time on those systems. -Barry