"Diez B. Roggisch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > In my opinion, python is steering here to a direction like Java with > it's classpath: scripts like workingenv and it's successor (forgot > the name) provide hand-tailored environments for a specific > application.
What a silly waste of resources. So, if fifteen different programs depend on library X, we'd have fifteen *separate* installations of library X on the same machine? And when it comes time to upgrade library X because a security flaw is discovered, each of the fifteen instances must be upgraded separately? > So maybe you should rather try and bundle your app in a way that it > is self-contained. That entirely defeats the purpose of having packages declare dependencies on each other. The whole point of re-usable library code is to *avoid* having to re-bundle every dependency with every separate application. -- \ "If [a technology company] has confidence in their future | `\ ability to innovate, the importance they place on protecting | _o__) their past innovations really should decline." -- Gary Barnett | Ben Finney -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
