-->"Paul" == Paul Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> My point to David was simply that egg packaging in the .egg form is >> more akin to Stow than to CPAN, so most of the flaws of CPAN are >> not applicable to them.
Paul> Sorry, I don't know what Stow is, so that doesn't clarify things Paul> to me (but that's OK, I got your point from the previous Paul> paragraph, so if the clarification helps David, that's enough). In fact, I use stow for anything not supported by Debian. Stow allows you to maintain a repository of built "installations", and to "activate" overlapping things one at a time. Normally, this means different versions of the one "product". It achieves this by managing symlink farms. It's a fairly Unix-y thing :-) >> I would call these "system packages", to distinguish them from >> Python packages. You (and others) would like to ensure that any >> project you install is wrapped in a system package. Paul> Gotcha. And you understand my position perfectly. That's my wish also. I realise that other people (possibly more so on non-Debian systems?) don't have such an attachment to the way the system manages installed products. Don't get me wrong: I'm not disputing that .eggs are useful, nor that they provide capabilities that a Debian-packaged result of an installation using 'python setup.py install' might not (at least now, easy-deb aside). And, fwiw, as a developer of Python modules, a way of distributing them that allows others to safely and easily install different versions of my modules with different applications on the same machine is attractive. But I was hoping that I could help clarify the point of view of a Debian user, by pointing out that there's at least some part of the Debian user community that won't like installing .egg applications unless they're sanely converted to .debs d -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
