[Image-SIG] PIL 1.0 as a package
Fred L. Drake, Jr.
Fred L. Drake, Jr." <firstname.lastname@example.org
Thu, 26 Aug 1999 10:08:27 -0400 (EDT)
Fredrik Lundh writes:
> well, as I read that text, it describes two *different*
> ways to install PIL. the package support was mostly
My bad; I must've misread.
So, is the "package" version recommended, or not? It sounds to me
like either PIL.pth *or* __init__.py* should be installed, but not
both (else both "import Image" and "import PIL.Image" work, and create
two different modules, talking to two different instances of
_imaging.so, which means that things get fragile).
It was not at all clear from the README that either usage is
preferred over the other, but I think it should be made clear so that
it is consistent across installations.
> or _imaging.so. in 1.0.1 (out soon), you can link it either
> into _tkinter.so, or into _imagingtk.so. it has to be some-
> where, you know...
Oh, you actually want the code in there!??!?! Isn't this where
ld.so pops open a window to let you type in the bits of the executable
code that were missing? I'd prefer that method! ;-)
Seriously, I prefer the last option you offer: having a separate
module that does the interfacing between the two packages.
> this has been fixed in 1.0.1.
Fred L. Drake, Jr. <email@example.com>
Corporation for National Research Initiatives