Hi, We talked about this recently on debian-python. importlib in 2.7 is only a subset of the version in 3.1 (precisely, importlib.import_module only), so packaging a full backport of importlib makes sense for 2.7 too.
>From http://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2011/01/msg00074.html : > On Jan 20, 2011, at 08:55 PM, Michael Fladischer wrote: >>Barry Warsaw, 2011-01-20 20:26: >>> On Jan 20, 2011, at 07:22 PM, Sandro Tosi wrote: >>>> Would it make sense to rename upstream module to importlib3 (to recall >>>> the fact it's a backport from py3k) and so it would importable also in >>>> 2.7 along with the stdlib 'importlib' module? >>> >>> I think it would make sense, yes. Any Python 2 code that uses importlib >>> being >>> ported to Python 3 would have to be modified, but I'd bet that'll affect oh, >>> roughly zero existing code bases right now, and it probably would have to do >>> so anyway. :) >> >>So we would have importlib in python-importlib and python2.7 and >>importlib3 in python3.x? > > Okay, sorry, let me clarify since I probably misunderstood the original > question. > > I just chatted with Brett Cannon. There is no backport of Python3's importlib > for Python 2, though he says it wouldn't be difficult to do. Such a thing > would have to be called importlib3 so as not to conflict with Python 2.7's > minimal package. > > A backport of the Cheeseshop package importlib[1], which provides Python 2.7's > minimal package, and is compatible back to Python 2.3, should be called > 'importlib' since it's identical to what's in Python 2.7. > > Hope that helps, > -Barry > > [1] http://pypi.python.org/pypi/importlib/1.0.2 Regards -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
