On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Antoine Pitrou<solipsis@pitrou.net> wrote:
Jesse Noller <jnoller@...> writes:
Because they're artifacts of a package installed into a version of the interpreter. Sure, "proper docs" will include a Python2.x section *and* the 3.x section; then again, why not only package the 3.x docs with the 3.x package?
That's a good point. Incidentally, data files can be installed in the package's directory if `package_data` is used in the setup script. Which obviously versions them.
Yup; and there's a sticking point - I'm more than willing with some of this to chalk this up to "bad package maintainers" - but given the sorry state of python-packaging in general (not disparaging Tarek's efforts) and the general confusion about the "One True Way to Do It", I think we need to do *something* to at least mitigate the issues. That's why I suggested versioning everything into versioned directories to begin with - sure, this adds a slight problem in that you have to do a export "PATH=$PATH:.local/python2.6/bin:local/python3.1/bin" and so on, but I feel that's a small problem compared to the "what version does this script apply to?" confusion. I'm trying to figure out the best way to handle this for people who are just trying to get something done, and we both know 2.x and 3.x are going to be sitting alongside one another for some time. People like those in this thread can easily work around both the $PATH and the ./local/bin issues - I just disable .local and stick with virtualenv, but that doesn't help Jim Bob sitting next to me who is a total newb. jesse