Filipe Laíns <la...@riseup.net> added the comment: > I am unsure if having two different interpreters is a good solution, and it > certainly requires some cooperation with distros.
That is not the goal with this! I think both this issue and the PEP are parallel. My goal here is to streamline the vendor patching of CPython, not propose parallel interpreters as an alternative. Having discussed with you about your motivations and approach on packaging Python in Debian, I would definitely not expect you to adopt multiple interpreters in Debian. The way this proposal mostly functionally impacts Debian is by isolating its namespace from the normal one, allowing you to drop changes like the dist-packages renaming -- because pip install will write to /usr/local/lib/python3.9-debian/site-packages and /usr/local Python installs will be looking at /usr/local/lib/python3.9/site-packages) -- and if I am not missing anything, unblocking bpo-43976. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue44982> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
