[Python-Dev] Status of packaging in 3.3

[Nick Coghlan]

On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 12:59 AM, Chris McDonough <chrism at plope.com> wrote:
> On 06/21/2012 10:30 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> That will give at least 3 mechanisms for Python code to get onto a system:
>>
>> 1. Python dist ->  converter ->  system package ->  system Python path
>>
>> 2. Python dist ->  system Python installer ->  system Python path
>>
>> 3. Python dist ->  venv Python installer ->  venv Python path
>>
>> While I agree that path 2 should be discouraged for production
>> systems, I don't think it should be prevented altogether (since it can
>> be very convenient on personal systems).
>
>
> I'm not sure under what circumstance 2 and 3 wouldn't do the same thing.  Do
> you have a concrete idea?

Yep, this is what I was talking about in terms of objecting to
installation of *.pth files: I think automatically installing *.pth
files into the system Python path is *wrong* (just like globally
editing PYTHONPATH), and that includes any *.pth files needed for egg
installation.

In a venv however, I assume the entire thing is application specific,
so using *.pth files and eggs for ease of management makes a lot of
sense and I would be fine with using that style of installation by
default.

If the *same* default was going to the used in both places, my
preference would be to avoid *.pth files by default and require them
to be explicitly requested regardless of the nature of the target
environment. I really just wanted to be clear that I don't mind *.pth
files at all in the venv case, because they're not affecting the
runtime state of other applications.

Cheers,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia