[Distutils] specifying the shipping of subpackages without their superpackages

Tarek Ziadé ziade.tarek at gmail.com
Wed Nov 25 18:04:53 CET 2009

On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Ronny Pfannschmidt
<Ronny.Pfannschmidt at 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)


More information about the Distutils-SIG mailing list