Re: Go (golang) packaging, part 2

[Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org>]

On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 8:19 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:

> Speaking with many hats on, I think Debian Python has done a very admirable
> job of integrating the Python ecosystem with Debian.

One of the pain points for users (I've had folks ask me this
face-to-face) with that stuff was site-packages vs dist-packages. With
your various Python hats on, can you explain why not just use
"packages" instead of "site-packages" and "dist-packages"? The right
way (IMO) would have been to put site packages in
/usr/local/lib/pythonX.Y/packages and dist ones in
/usr/lib/pythonX.Y/packages. Right now I have
/usr/local/lib/pythonX.Y/dist-packages and
/usr/lib/pythonX.Y/dist-packages, why is /usr/local dist-packages
instead of site-packages? /usr/local is clearly not the location for
distro installed packages.

Why did Debian have to invent /usr/share/pyshared and symlink farms in
/usr/lib/pythonX.Y instead of upstream having something like that in
the default install and search paths?

The location of .pyc files that are built at install time doesn't feel
FHS-correct to me, /var/cache/python/X.Y/ seems better.

Debian's Python build helper tools are still breeding like rabbits,
there is a new one in experimental. I guess because the current ones
dh_python2/dh_python3 don't handle packages that contain only code
that runs on both python2 and python3 without changes.

-- 
bye,
pabs

http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise