[Python-ideas] Draft PEP for virtualenv in the stdlib

[Barry Warsaw]

On Oct 26, 2011, at 09:02 AM, Vinay Sajip wrote:

>I thought Carl was saying that we use "local_prefix" as opposed to
>"venv_prefix", because the "local_" prefix seems logical and doesn't override
>"site". In a venv, local_prefix/local_exec_prefix point to the venv, otherwise
>they have the same values as prefix/exec_prefix. The "venv_XXX" does grate a
>bit, especially as we're trying to achieve a don't-know-or-care-if-
>I'm-in-a-venv as much as possible.
>
>And thinking more about overriding "site" - what is a "site" anyway? It seems
>to be a combination of Python version, standard library and a specific set of
>packages (comprising in the general case include files, shared libs and
>extension modules) - if I installed 3 different versions of Python on my
>system, I would have three different sites. By that definition, a venv is
>really a site, albeit a pared-down one which references shared code and
>library where possible.
>
>So site_prefix/site_exec_prefix don't seem unreasonable to me, or failing
>that, local_prefix/local_exec_prefix would be preferable to
>venv_prefix/venv_exec_prefix.

I agree in general with these observations.  What we're currently calling
"site" feels more like "system" to me, although we probably can't change that
until Python 4000.

One other reason I like "local" over "venv" is that "venv" isn't actually a
word.  While it'll probably make it easier to google, it looks fairly jarring
to me.  In general I try to avoid made up words and abbreviations because they
are harder for non-native English speakers to use (so I've been told by some
non-native English speakers).

-Barry
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/attachments/20111026/be688223/attachment.pgp>