[PEAK] eggs with individual .pth's

[Rob Cakebread]

Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> At 02:07 PM 10/12/2005 -0700, Rob Cakebread wrote:
> 
>> Would using individual .pth files be a problem as far as using
>> easy_install as a query tool or breaking other features it may have?
> 
> 
> The impacts are:
> 
> 1. Slower Python startup time, since Python must open and read all .pth 
> files

Thanks for the quick reply, Phillip. We did some preliminary testing and
it wasn't much slower, but we'll do more testing.

> 
> 2. Some packages may not be overrideable via easy-install.pth, as .pth 
> files are read alphabetically.  (You could work around this by using 
> names like vendor-foopackage.pth, which would then allow 
> easy-install.pth to override them)
> 

I'm not sure what you mean here. In what situation would we want one
.pth to override another .pth?

> The final choice is up to you, of course, but I would tend to go with 
> the single .pth file if possible, although it might be reasonable to use 
> a 'vendor.pth' or 'portage.pth' file instead of easy-install.pth.  
> Setuptools itself uses this notion of a "backup" .pth file that allows 
> setuptools itself to still function if it is removed from easy-install.pth.
> 

I like the idea of putting them in a separate .pth file if only for
knowing what portage installs and what the user installs directly with
easy_install

Thanks,
Rob

p.s. If any Gentoo users are interested in helping out, we have set up
a Trac site for Eggs on Gentoo. There is a very preliminary eggs.eclass
and test ebuild in SVN. http://eggs.gentooexperimental.org/


-- 
Rob Cakebread
Gentoo Linux Developer
Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x96BA679B
Key fingerprint = 5E1A 57A0 0FA6 939D 3258  8369 81C5 A17B 96BA 679B