[Python-Dev] Dropping __init__.py requirement for subpackages

[Thomas Wouters]

On 4/27/06, Gustavo Carneiro <gjcarneiro at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 4/27/06, Phillip J. Eby <pje at telecommunity.com> wrote:
> >
> > At 03:48 PM 4/27/2006 +0200, Bernhard Herzog wrote:
> > >"Gustavo Carneiro" <gjcarneiro at gmail.com> writes:
> > >
> > > >   Now the problem.  Suppose you have the source package
> > python-foo-bar,
> > > > which installs $pythondir/foo/__init__.py and
> > $pythondir/foo/bar.py.  This
> > > > would make a module called "foo.bar" available.  Likewise, you can
> > have the
> > > > source package python-foo-zbr, which installs
> > > $pythondir/foo/__init__.py and
> > > > $pythondir/foo/zbr.py.  This would make a module called "foo.zbr"
> > > available.
> > > >
> > > >   The two packages above install the file
> > $pythondir/foo/__init__.py.  If
> > > > one of them adds some content to __init__.py, the other one will
> > overwrite
> > > > it.  Packaging these two packages for e.g. debian would be extremely
> > > > difficult, because no two .deb packages are allowed to intall the
> > same file.
> > >
> > >Yet another solution would be to put foo/__init__.py into a third
> > >package, e.g. python-foo, on which both python-foo-bar and
> > >python-foo-zbr depend.
>
>
>   You can't be serious.  One package just to install a __init__.py file?
>

Sure. Have you counted the number of 'empty' packages in Debian lately?
Besides, Guido's original proposal is not a fix for your problem, either; he
only proposes to change the requirement for *sub*packages.

--
Thomas Wouters <thomas at python.org>

Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me
spread!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20060427/71af164c/attachment.htm