[Python-Dev] Python-Dev Digest, Vol 84, Issue 112

[John Nagle]

> Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2010 23:59:14 +0200
> From:schmir at gmail.com
> To: Barry Warsaw<barry at python.org>
> Cc: Ronald Oussoren<ronaldoussoren at mac.com>,python-dev at python.org
> Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] versioned .so files for Python 3.2
> Message-ID:<87aapgbky5.fsf at brainbot.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Barry Warsaw<barry at python.org>  writes:
>
>> >  On Jul 23, 2010, at 01:46 PM,schmir at gmail.com  wrote:
>> >
>>> >>Doesn't anybody else think this is lost work for very little gain? My
>>> >>/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages directory consumes 200MB on disk. I
>>> >>couldn't care less if my /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages consumed the
>>> >>same amount of disk space...
>> >
>> >  Right, you probably don't care now that your extension modules live in foo.so
>> >  so it probably won't make much difference if they were named foo-blahblah.so,
>> >  as long as they import.:)
> Most of the time it won't make much difference, right. But I can assure
> you, that it will bite some people and there is some code to be adapted.
>
>> >
>> >  If you use Debian or Ubuntu though, it'll be a win for you by allow us to make
>> >  Python support much more robust.
> I'd much prefer to have cleanly separated environments by having
> separate directories for my python modules. Sharing the source code and
> complicating things will not lead to increased robustness.
>
> - Ralf


    Debian's policy on Python packaging calls for maximum separation
between versions.  See

"http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/python-policy/"

This keeps the system updaters from becoming confused, and
reduces the risk that an update to one version of Python will
break another version.

				John Nagle