These all end up mapping to pth files and are owned by different packages ... here is an example from my F9 laptop ...
[steve@tachikoman site-packages]$ for x in `find . -name "*.pth"`; do
echo -n "$x: ";
echo `rpm -q --whatprovides /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/$x`;
done
./PasteDeploy-1.3.1-py2.5-nspkg.pth: python-paste-deploy-1.3.1-2.fc9.noarch
./Numeric.pth: python-numeric-24.2-11.fc9.i386
./Paste-1.6-py2.5-nspkg.pth: python-paste-1.6-1.fc9.noarch
./PIL.pth: python-imaging-1.1.6-9.fc9.i386
./pygtk.pth: pygobject2-2.14.2-1.fc9.i386
./easy-install.pth: file /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/easy-install.pth is not owned by any package
./pygst.pth: gstreamer-python-0.10.11-2.fc9.i386
./DecoratorTools-1.7-py2.5-nspkg.pth: python-decoratortools-1.7-1.fc9.noarch
./PasteScript-1.6.2-py2.5-nspkg.pth: python-paste-script-1.6.2-2.fc9.noarch
./wx.pth: wxPython-2.8.9.1-1.fc9.i386
or on my F10 desktop
[steve@powerhouse site-packages]$ for x in `find . -name "*.pth"`; do
> echo -n "$x: ";
> echo `rpm -q --whatprovides /usr/lib64/python2.5/site-packages/$x`;
> done
./pygtk.pth: pygobject2-2.15.4-3.fc10.x86_64
./Numeric.pth: python-numeric-24.2-11.fc9.x86_64
./PIL.pth: python-imaging-1.1.6-12.fc10.x86_64
./pygst.pth: gstreamer-python-0.10.12-1.fc10.x86_64
./scim.pth: scim-python-0.1.13rc1-1.fc10.x86_64
I looked quickly at the patching that is done on site.py in the python package and it's pretty minimal and it didn't look to be related.
I guess I could make a patch that generates full path pth's off of whats in the site-packages dir(s). I don't know if that really makes sense though since it's per package.
I could still be missing something though ... let me know if I am Thomas.
These all end up mapping to pth files and are owned by different packages ... here is an example from my F9 laptop ...
[steve@tachikoman site-packages]$ for x in `find . -name "*.pth"`; do python2. 5/site- packages/ $x`; 1.3.1-py2. 5-nspkg. pth: python- paste-deploy- 1.3.1-2. fc9.noarch numeric- 24.2-11. fc9.i386 1.6-py2. 5-nspkg. pth: python- paste-1. 6-1.fc9. noarch imaging- 1.1.6-9. fc9.i386 2.14.2- 1.fc9.i386 python2. 5/site- packages/ easy-install. pth is not owned by any package python- 0.10.11- 2.fc9.i386 s-1.7-py2. 5-nspkg. pth: python- decoratortools- 1.7-1.fc9. noarch 1.6.2-py2. 5-nspkg. pth: python- paste-script- 1.6.2-2. fc9.noarch 2.8.9.1- 1.fc9.i386
echo -n "$x: ";
echo `rpm -q --whatprovides /usr/lib/
done
./PasteDeploy-
./Numeric.pth: python-
./Paste-
./PIL.pth: python-
./pygtk.pth: pygobject2-
./easy-install.pth: file /usr/lib/
./pygst.pth: gstreamer-
./DecoratorTool
./PasteScript-
./wx.pth: wxPython-
or on my F10 desktop
[steve@powerhouse site-packages]$ for x in `find . -name "*.pth"`; do python2. 5/site- packages/ $x`; 2.15.4- 3.fc10. x86_64 numeric- 24.2-11. fc9.x86_ 64 imaging- 1.1.6-12. fc10.x86_ 64 python- 0.10.12- 1.fc10. x86_64 0.1.13rc1- 1.fc10. x86_64
> echo -n "$x: ";
> echo `rpm -q --whatprovides /usr/lib64/
> done
./pygtk.pth: pygobject2-
./Numeric.pth: python-
./PIL.pth: python-
./pygst.pth: gstreamer-
./scim.pth: scim-python-
I looked quickly at the patching that is done on site.py in the python package and it's pretty minimal and it didn't look to be related.
I guess I could make a patch that generates full path pth's off of whats in the site-packages dir(s). I don't know if that really makes sense though since it's per package.
I could still be missing something though ... let me know if I am Thomas.