On Mar 6, 9:34 am, "Chris Mellon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It assumes that util.common is a module thats on the PYTHONPATH.
Now we're getting somewhere. :) > The common way to ensure that this is the case is either to handle > util as a separate project, and install it into the system > site-packages just as you would any third party package, This breaks if you ever need to test more than one branch of the same code base. I use a release branch and a development branch. Only the release branch goes into site-packages, but obviously I do most of my work in the development branch. > or to have it > (and all your other application packages and modules) off a single > root which is where your your application "base" scripts live. This has SERIOUS scaling problems. > This, and other intra-package import issues are affected by the > relative/absolute import changes that were begun in Python 2.5, you > can read about them here:http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0328/ Awesome! Thanks. I'll take a look. > Note that using relative imports to import a package that "happens" to > be share a common higher level directory would be frowned upon. What if it shares a common higher level directory by design? :) Relative imports aren't ideal, but I think in some cases it's better than relying on PYTHONPATH which is global state (an environment variable no less). Martin -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
