[Distutils] PEP 376 for Distutils
strawman at astraw.com
Tue Feb 24 20:48:13 CET 2009
Ronald Oussoren wrote:
> On 24 Feb, 2009, at 16:20, P.J. Eby wrote:
>>> Indeed. Having an index file would make things a whole lot simpler.
>> For *whom*? Certainly not for system packaging tools (rpm, deb, et al).
>> A design goal should be to allow system packaging tools to install a
>> static file footprint: i.e., independent files with predefined
>> content, and no post-processing steps. You can't do that with a
>> shared file, which is why setuptools uses a .pth hack to install
>> namespace packages when building packages for rpm et al.
> What about another interoperability hook for system packages: specify a
> file that a (system) package manager can include into the egg-info
> directory (or egg-file) to tell setuptools/pip that this egg is managed
> by the system and hence shouldn't be removed by setuptools/pip.
> Which such a file the user of python package tool could be warned if he
> tries to uninstall an egg that's owned by the system, instead of
> invoking the wrath of a sysadmin by removing such files.
But that is already implemented via file/dir permissions. By your
reasoning, we should also have something which warns users not to
install to the system directory. These ideas are a duplication of
functionality -- this functionality is implemented by the disabling
write permissions of non-sysadmins into system directories.
Or do you propose users put some stuff into their system directories not
managed by their package managers and other stuff managed by the package
More information about the Distutils-SIG