At 04:42 PM 5/9/2009 +0200, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> If you always use --single-version-externally-managed with easy_install,
>> it will stop editing .pth files on installation.
>
> It's --multi-version (-m) that does that.
> --single-version-externally-managed is a "setup.py install" option.
>
> GNU stow does handle these issues.
If GNU stow solves all your problems, why do you want to
use easy_install in the first place?
Regards,
Martin
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On May 9, 2009, at 9:39 AM, P.J. Eby wrote:
It would be really straightforward, though, for someone to
implement an easy_install variant that does this. Just invoke
"easy_install -Zmaxd /some/tmpdir packagelist" to get a full set of
unpacked .egg directories in /some/tmpdir, and then move
> Ah, ok. Is there also an easy_install invocation that unpacks the zip
> file into some location of sys.path (which then wouldn't require
> editing sys.path)?
You have pip that does that :)
--
дамјан ( http://softver.org.mk/damjan/ )
... knowledge is exactly like power - something
to be dist
At 04:42 PM 5/9/2009 +0200, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> If you always use --single-version-externally-managed with easy_install,
>> it will stop editing .pth files on installation.
>
> It's --multi-version (-m) that does that.
> --single-version-externally-managed is a "setup.py install" option.
>
>> If you always use --single-version-externally-managed with easy_install,
>> it will stop editing .pth files on installation.
>
> It's --multi-version (-m) that does that.
> --single-version-externally-managed is a "setup.py install" option.
>
> Both have the effect of not editing .pth files,
At 04:18 PM 5/9/2009 +0200, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Zooko O'Whielacronx wrote:
> .pth files are why I can't easily use GNU stow with easy_install.
> If installing a Python package involved writing new files into the
> filesystem, but did not require reading, updating, and re-writing any
> extant
Zooko O'Whielacronx wrote:
> .pth files are why I can't easily use GNU stow with easy_install.
> If installing a Python package involved writing new files into the
> filesystem, but did not require reading, updating, and re-writing any
> extant files such as .pth files, then GNU stow would Just Wor
.pth files are why I can't easily use GNU stow with easy_install.
If installing a Python package involved writing new files into the
filesystem, but did not require reading, updating, and re-writing any
extant files such as .pth files, then GNU stow would Just Work with
easy_install the way it Just
Chris Withers wrote:
I'll say! I think .pth files are absolute evil and I wish they could
just be banned.
+1 on anything that makes them closer to going away or reduces the
possibility of yet another similar feature from hurting the
comprehensibility of a python setup.
I've seen this view e
Chris Withers wrote:
M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
"""
If the package really requires adding one or more directories on
sys.path (e.g. because it has not yet been structured to support
dotted-name import), a "path configuration file" named package.pth
can be placed in either the site-python or site-pac
M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
"""
If the package really requires adding one or more directories on sys.path (e.g.
because it has not yet been structured to support dotted-name import), a "path
configuration file" named package.pth can be placed in either the site-python or
site-packages directory.
...
A t
12 matches
Mail list logo
