[PEAK] Changing installation location (was re: PEAK CVS vs. ZODB CVS :: [pP]ersistence :: Round 1, Fight!)

[Bob Ippolito]

On Feb 22, 2004, at 12:52 PM, Ulrich Eck wrote:

>> Actually, this looks pretty cool.  The only downside I see is that 
>> existing
>> installations of PEAK (or packages installed by PEAK) would need to be
>> completely cleaned out first.  Otherwise, the old versions will live 
>> on in
>> site-packages, which would be come before the .pth in the file.
>>
>
> not a problem for me
>
>> But, the cool thing is that it would in future be *trivial* to remove 
>> or
>> update a PEAK installation.  And, it would make it possible to have 
>> PEAK
>> co-exist with a Zope X3 installation with minimal weirdness.  For 
>> example,
>> I could have PEAK *always* install ZConfig and persistence, since the 
>> Zope
>> ones would get used if Zope is installed to site-packages.
>>
>
> and it would ease the creation of debian packages, because debian does 
> not
> allow to overwrite an already installed lib e.g. kjbuckets while 
> installing a
> new package.
>
>> What does everybody else think?  Can you live with doing a one-time
>> deletion of your existing ZConfig, peak, datetime, csv, fcgiapp, 
>> kjbuckets,
>> and protocols packages/modules, in order for future installs to have
>> everything bundled in a single directory?  Should I make this change 
>> to
>> PyProtocols as well?
>
> i like the idea for peak.
> for pyprotocols i would use the common way of installing a package,
> cause i think it's audience is much wider than peak's. a "suspicious,
> undocumented" way of installing would imho not help pyprotocols to get
> popular.

I would imagine that people are used to seeing pth files, since PIL and 
Numeric both use them.

-bob