PEP 262 (database of installed Python packages)

[Jeff Shannon]

Andy Elvey wrote:

> Hi all.
>   I've just been mulling over this (_very_ good and welcome!) PEP.  In fact,
> this suggestion is _so good_  that I'd like to "widen" it somewhat.   Allow
> me to explain .... (and please forgive the slight diversion past "Rubyland"
> .... :-)
>   I've spent a _frustrating_ amount of time with a _Ruby_ package that can't
> find various files.  Now, I knew about PEP 262, so I was thinking in general
> terms,  it would be *truly* wonderful if there were a (standard?) database
> of  *all*  installed packages (Python, Ruby, and whatever else) - maybe in a
> directory called "search".   In Linux, this could be "/search" ,  in Win32
> "C:\search".

If I understand correctly what you're proposing, I'm not sure what this would
gain.  You want a single database which describes all installed modules/packages
for Python *and* Ruby *and* etc... ??  How does this "integration" benefit?

Your Ruby packages don't do Python any good.  Your Python packages don't do Ruby
any good.  Putting them all in the same place just makes it easier to confuse
things.  (Hm, is that 'serial' directory for Python or Ruby?)

While it might be beneficial for Ruby to have a parallel database, that follows
the same general pattern as Python's, I can't see the gain for making them be
the *same* database.  Especially since separating them makes it possible for
Ruby to use a different scheme, that it more appropriate to Ruby, and let Python
use a scheme customized to Python, instead of both making compromises to
accomodate the other.

Jeff Shannon
Technician/Programmer
Credit International