[PEAK] eggs with individual .pth's

Rob Cakebread pythonhead at gentoo.org
Thu Oct 13 16:18:45 EDT 2005

Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> 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

Thanks for the quick reply, Phillip. We did some preliminary testing and
it wasn't much slower, but we'll do more testing.

> 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)

I'm not sure what you mean here. In what situation would we want one
.pth to override another .pth?

> 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.

I like the idea of putting them in a separate .pth file if only for
knowing what portage installs and what the user installs directly with


p.s. If any Gentoo users are interested in helping out, we have set up
a Trac site for Eggs on Gentoo. There is a very preliminary eggs.eclass
and test ebuild in SVN. http://eggs.gentooexperimental.org/

Rob Cakebread
Gentoo Linux Developer
Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x96BA679B
Key fingerprint = 5E1A 57A0 0FA6 939D 3258  8369 81C5 A17B 96BA 679B

More information about the PEAK mailing list