[PEAK] eggs with individual .pth's
Phillip J. Eby
pje at telecommunity.com
Wed Oct 12 17:23:54 EDT 2005
At 02:07 PM 10/12/2005 -0700, Rob Cakebread wrote:
>Would using individual .pth files be a problem as far as using
>easy_install as a query tool or breaking other features it may have?
The impacts are:
1. Slower Python startup time, since Python must open and read all .pth files
2. Some packages may not be overrideable via easy-install.pth, as .pth
files are read alphabetically. (You could work around this by using names
like vendor-foopackage.pth, which would then allow easy-install.pth to
override them)
The final choice is up to you, of course, but I would tend to go with the
single .pth file if possible, although it might be reasonable to use a
'vendor.pth' or 'portage.pth' file instead of easy-install.pth. Setuptools
itself uses this notion of a "backup" .pth file that allows setuptools
itself to still function if it is removed from easy-install.pth.
More information about the PEAK
mailing list