[Import-SIG] Where to discuss PEP 382 vs. PEP 402 (namespace packages)?

[Barry Warsaw]

On Mar 12, 2012, at 10:58 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:

>With the status quo or PEP 382's explicit namespace packages, the
>interpreter can look at the *filesystem* to figure out where the root
>directory of the package lives, as the explicit package markers (i.e.
>__init__.py files or *.pyp extensions) mean there is an unambiguous
>1:1 mapping from a filesystem path to a (sys.path entry, module
>reference) pair.

Just a quick note about PEP 382.  As it's currently written (i.e. with the
.pyp extension on directories), I worry about whether it will be possible to
support both Python 3.2 and Python >= 3.3 with a single vendor package.  This
may only be an interim problem until we never care about Python 3.2 anymore 5
years from now, or it might be solvable by backporting the PEP into the
vendor's version of Python 3.2, or some other solution such as symlinks or
what not (though I would definitely not want to reintroduce a huge symlink
farm again).  Or maybe marker files such as described in the original version
of the PEP are more appropriate after all.

Or maybe PEP 402 is the right approach after all, and Nick's concerns about
its interactions with PEP 395 can be addressed in other ways.

What I'd really like Guido to do is to provide his opinion about which PEP in
general he favors.  Then I think we can hash out the details and corner cases
here in this mailing list before a final pronouncement is made.

Cheers,
-Barry