
On Python packaging - arthurk
http://www.b-list.org/weblog/2008/dec/14/packaging/
======
jbert
In the perl world, I:

\- use apt to manage what's installed on the system

\- use CPAN to manage additional stuff installed per-user (you just specify a
standard install prefix for all CPAN modules)

that way I don't mess with the system (any packages wanted by system
components see the version they are expecting) but I can have (per-user)
additional pkgs + updated pkgs, which is often useful.

This seems to be the best of both worlds, to me.

------
tdavis
The thing I've always hated about eggs is that invariably something that uses
an egg won't have the permissions to write to the default egg cache. It has
gotten to the point now that if I know something is going to install an egg, I
just do _setup.py build_ and copy the build folder into _site-packages_. It's
just not worth the annoyance for what is, at least as far as I can tell, no
gain.

(Edit: read cache)

~~~
ruby_roo
You know what else sucks about Python eggs?

They're called 'eggs'. :(

~~~
tdavis
No worse than "gems" ;)

------
old-gregg
Short version: don't reinvent the wheel. And, going back to an analogous issue
in the Ruby world mentioned by the author, I hope RubyGems team will finally
accept the reality we live in and fix that little "parallel dimension" they
created.

------
bandris
Ian Bicking's long reply: [http://blog.ianbicking.org/2008/12/14/a-few-
corrections-to-o...](http://blog.ianbicking.org/2008/12/14/a-few-corrections-
to-on-packaging/)

------
alexkay
Cached version: <http://is.gd/bFtu>

