[Python-Dev] Better support for consuming vendored packages

[Nick Coghlan]

On 24 March 2018 at 19:29, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 23 March 2018 at 02:58, Gregory Szorc <gregory.szorc at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'd like to start a discussion around practices for vendoring package
>> dependencies. I'm not sure python-dev is the appropriate venue for this
>> discussion. If not, please point me to one and I'll gladly take it there.
>>
>>
> Since you mainly seem interested in the import side of things (rather than
> the initial vendoring process), python-ideas is probably the most suitable
> location (we're not at the stage of a concrete design proposal that would
> be appropriate for python-dev, and this doesn't get far enough into import
> system arcana to really need to be an import-sig discussion rather than a
> python-ideas one).
>
>
>> What we've done is effectively rename the "shrubbery" package to
>> "knights.vendored.shrubbery." If a module inside that package attempts an
>> `import shrubbery.x`, this could fail because "shrubbery" is no longer the
>> package name. Or worse, it could pick up a separate copy of "shrubbery"
>> somewhere else in `sys.path` and you could have a Frankenstein package
>> pulling its code from multiple installs. So for this to work, all
>> package-local imports must be using relative imports. e.g. `from . import
>> x`.
>>
>
> If it's the main application doing the vendoring, then the following kind
> of snippet can be helpful:
>
>     from knights.vendored import shrubbery
>     import sys
>     sys.path["shrubbery"] = shrubbery
>

Oops, s/path/modules/ :)

Cheers,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20180324/01e1072a/attachment.html>