| 1 |
Hi all, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
I would like to collect opinions on how to handle PIL |
| 4 |
(dev-python/imaging) and its fork Pillow. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
PIL allows its modules to be imported from the PIL namespace, or from |
| 7 |
the top-level namespace for backward compatibility. For example: |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
import Image # legacy import |
| 10 |
from PIL import Image |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Pillow removes the backward compatibility and no longer allows imports |
| 13 |
from the top-level namespace. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Arfrever and I have assembled a tracker bug of packages which need |
| 16 |
updating to be compatible with Pillow. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=471488 |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
The question I have: Is it better to have Pillow as a separate package |
| 21 |
and set up a virtual, or should Pillow just be added as a version bump |
| 22 |
of dev-python/imaging? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
The portage tree currently has both dev-python/imaging-2.0.0 |
| 25 |
(hard-masked), and dev-python/pillow-2.0.0. My intent was to eliminate |
| 26 |
dev-python/pillow with a pkg move, but upon further consideration I |
| 27 |
would like to gather some more opinions on the matter. |
Archives