My solution is patch the upstream with "sys.path.insert" function.
I wonder that is there a more elegant solution to achieve this goal but
without upstream patch ?
--
Sun-Ze Lin (林上智)
2016-10-18 19:51 GMT+08:00 Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>:
> Lars Wirzenius writes ("Re: Package name conflict question"):
> > I don't have a solution for this. The ideal solution would be for one
> > or both upstream developers to rename their library. However, that's
> > only ideal in the long run, since it requires every program that uses
> > the libraries to be updated to use the new name.
>
> This is less awful than it sounds because Python's `import' statement
> can import module X but call it internally by the name Y. So for most
> callers, the required changes would be small and simple (if perhaps
> numerous). It might even be possible to do it mechanically.
>
> Another approach would be to install the latecomer in a deviant path.
> Then packaged applications which use the latecomer would modify
> sys.path or PYTHONPATH somehow. A compatibility module could be
> provided which did this.
>
> Ian.
>
> --
> Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
>
> If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
> a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
>
>
