On Oct 15, 4:30 pm, bukzor <workithar...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 13, 3:20 pm, "Gabriel Genellina" <gagsl-...@yahoo.com.ar> > wrote: > > > > > > > En Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:38:44 -0300, Buck <workithar...@gmail.com> escribió: > > > > The only way to get your packages on the PYTHONPATH currently is to: > > > * install the packages to site-packages (I don't have access) > > > * edit the PYTHONPATH all users' environment (again, no access) > > > * create some boilerplate that edits sys.path at runtime (various > > > problems in previous post) > > > * put your scripts directly above the package (this seems best so > > > far, but forces a flat hierarchy of scripts) > > > Not exactly - in short, you have to place the package under some directory > > that is eventually listed in sys.path. > > By default, one of such directories is site-packages, but there are also > > per-user directories. On Windows, %APPDATA%\Python\PythonNN\site-packages > > (see PEP 370 [1]). If you don't want to copy the package there, you can > > even add a .pth file and it will be processed. > > The .pth files are intriguing. Is this the best > reference?http://docs.python.org/library/site.html > > My current solution very closely resembles the .pth system, but uses > the scripts' directory and accepts relative paths. > If I'm reading the doc correctly, the .pth system currently doesn't > support either of these. Does anyone know of the rationale for this?
I thought this was one of the least objectionable of my posts. Does anyone know how to find a discussion of the .pth implementation? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
