[Image-SIG] PIL 1.0 as a package

[Fred L. Drake, Jr.]

Fredrik Lundh writes:
 > well, as I read that text, it describes two *different*
 > ways to install PIL.  the package support was mostly

  My bad; I must've misread.
  So, is the "package" version recommended, or not?  It sounds to me
like either PIL.pth *or* __init__.py* should be installed, but not
both (else both "import Image" and "import PIL.Image" work, and create 
two different modules, talking to two different instances of
_imaging.so, which means that things get fragile).
  It was not at all clear from the README that either usage is
preferred over the other, but I think it should be made clear so that
it is consistent across installations.

 > or _imaging.so.  in 1.0.1 (out soon), you can link it either
 > into _tkinter.so, or into _imagingtk.so.  it has to be some-
 > where, you know...

  Oh, you actually want the code in there!??!?!  Isn't this where
ld.so pops open a window to let you type in the bits of the executable 
code that were missing?  I'd prefer that method!  ;-)
  Seriously, I prefer the last option you offer: having a separate
module that does the interfacing between the two packages.

 > this has been fixed in 1.0.1.

  Thanks!


  -Fred

--
Fred L. Drake, Jr.	     <fdrake@acm.org>
Corporation for National Research Initiatives