Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #7123

Re: -nspkg.pth and .pth files - should we get rid of them?

Path	csiph.com!aioe.org!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From	Dimitri John Ledkov <dimitri.ledkov@surgut.co.uk>
Newsgroups	linux.debian.maint.python
Subject	Re: -nspkg.pth and .pth files - should we get rid of them?
Date	Mon, 20 Jul 2015 14:40:02 +0200
Message-ID	<pOiwq-1i3-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<pO2rE-3BN-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <pOdQ6-30O-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <pOe9s-3nL-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <pOej8-3Of-33@gated-at.bofh.it> <pOgXE-7pn-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <pOhgZ-81e-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <pOhTI-j2-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <pOi3o-K8-19@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To	Julien Cristau <julien.cristau@logilab.fr>
Old-Return-Path	<dimitri.ledkov@surgut.co.uk>
X-Amavis-Spam-Status	No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3 tests=[BAYES_00=-2, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1] autolearn=no
X-Policyd-Weight	NOT_IN_SBL_XBL_SPAMHAUS=-1.5 NOT_IN_BL_NJABL=-1.5 CL_IP_EQ_HELO_IP=-2 (check from: .surgut. - helo: .mail-la0-x235.google. - helo-domain: .google.) FROM/MX_MATCHES_NOT_HELO(DOMAIN)=0; rate: -5
Dkim-Signature	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=surgut.co.uk; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=HWygnB1r59J5aXJXoYsQS7Uiz6lJ0muopnpoKnaI7Lc=; b=MpQeFkB5UPrkGgHIZXud8kdNt41pxsAgclIy73i31S09qufTsLh20yrp2AEn9BmLO6 S0phcDFyHeMVOsotT5aKDjvfTIRyyjrjNDj8RTDBC6QdUTDu3b3vUA2KZLAgDzE/u2gu FYkKfv4h4eacIen3MtW1rPxMpFiuxqTTKVEQQ=
X-Google-Dkim-Signature	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=HWygnB1r59J5aXJXoYsQS7Uiz6lJ0muopnpoKnaI7Lc=; b=AyV0pDOzkODqJNdM4opciePuBjzQatZDxigMJNRWgTbznlvFPsuQ/KbuhRUWTHbuSt 5ODsqI5B6Xxrlbe6uA3XtTsL6U3IQ/t/rUqaM70SYFIb/1vxLloIVP38FUQoO5Np2Js1 PmAMsruZZnXOO3bjIG7fxv5w2ibEaNRnjLHIkFPU4NqDEQbRrLd/qBVH5gvFElCvIttT 9mK8LLH1nL1tvJr4ccYf3ko0TSnxh96K6sHZb+GTgOUKv0GTtajYH4wQrF45GCw57OkN tGbQ9ATo8dE4xao/gzGhQ60xFUkGsszXN/i2pGY91oyVcvq9SSDQba15lxTkeHBZdvm6 Kk2A==
X-Gm-Message-State	ALoCoQmXyIwu4QCvFNaGeNAdkVm2dmQLajESlr7xbXFlvvoP6bSj3tzFQuXOuPNJxtXnmsDsC14h
MIME-Version	1.0
X-Received	by 10.152.36.41 with SMTP id n9mr27590036laj.79.1437394341504; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 05:12:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP	[86.14.120.99]
Content-Type	text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Mailing-List	<debian-python@lists.debian.org> archive/latest/12424
List-ID	<debian-python.lists.debian.org>
List-URL	<http://lists.debian.org/debian-python/>
Approved	robomod@news.nic.it
Lines	35
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway
Sender	robomod@news.nic.it
X-Original-Cc	Barry Warsaw <barry@debian.org>, debian-python <debian-python@lists.debian.org>
X-Original-Date	Mon, 20 Jul 2015 13:12:21 +0100
X-Original-Message-ID	<CANBHLUjb4+KtnEDAKDTg=KBxNc-hjFfEU3sUekGQ9uZmXwpwbw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Original-References	<20150719192831.GD25549@p1otr.com> <20150720072935.GA1918@sh76.dev.logilab.fr> <20150720075655.GE18403@sar0.p1otr.com> <20150720080015.GB1918@sh76.dev.logilab.fr> <CANBHLUh_=LWj_dGwfaULrxyt_nrFX3Se8jeDMx_e6EZ_0qAWTg@mail.gmail.com> <20150720111214.GC1918@sh76.dev.logilab.fr> <20150720075813.0252b8aa@anarchist.wooz.org> <20150720120404.GE1918@sh76.dev.logilab.fr>
Xref	aioe.org linux.debian.maint.python:7123

Show key headers only | View raw

On 20 July 2015 at 13:04, Julien Cristau <julien.cristau@logilab.fr> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 07:58:13 -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>
>> On Jul 20, 2015, at 01:12 PM, Julien Cristau wrote:
>>
>> >Is that a serious question?  Why should debian-python, for no good
>> >reason, break things that work just fine?
>>
>> Because it doesn't really work well when you are supporting both Python 2 and
>> Python 3.  For example, if you have the 'foo' namespace with submodules 'bar'
>> and 'baz', you can't write a foo/__init__.py that supports old-style
>> namespaces for Python 2 and PEP 420 style namespaces for Python 3 because in
>> the latter *you can't have an __init__.py at all*.
>>
> That's exactly why Debian shouldn't mess with it.  If upstream is
> python3-only, they can remove __init__.py and go PEP420.  If not, they
> can use old-style namespaces on both python versions, and there's no
> reason for Debian to break that IMO.

Would it be fair to have a goal to only have PEP420 style namespaces
in python3 world?

And if there are upstreams that don't do that now, work with them to
achieve this and/or cpython/setuptools/distutils upstream.

-- 
Regards,

Dimitri.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CANBHLUjb4+KtnEDAKDTg=KBxNc-hjFfEU3sUekGQ9uZmXwpwbw@mail.gmail.com

Back to linux.debian.maint.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

-nspkg.pth and .pth files - should we get rid of them? Piotr Ożarowski <piotr@debian.org> - 2015-07-19 21:30 +0200
  Re: -nspkg.pth and .pth files - should we get rid of them? Dimitri John Ledkov <dimitri.ledkov@surgut.co.uk> - 2015-07-20 14:40 +0200
    Re: -nspkg.pth and .pth files - should we get rid of them? Barry Warsaw <barry@debian.org> - 2015-07-20 14:40 +0200

csiph-web