Re: Updating irectories for python scripts.

[Mats Erik Andersson <mats.andersson@gisladisker.se>]

fredag den  2 oktober 2009 klockan 21:26 skrev Sandro Tosi detta:
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 20:53, Mats Erik Andersson
> <mats.andersson@gisladisker.se> wrote:
> > Dear mentors,
> >
> > in trying to revive a dormant package, I came across the
> > desire of the previous maintainer to drop a python script
> > into the directory
> >
> >     /usr/lib/site-python.
> >
> > According to present day policy that directory should be avoided.
> > Bearing the tiwo common packages
> >
> >        python2.{4,5}-minimal
> >
> > in mind, which one of the replacement directories
> >
> >    /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/
> >
> > and
> >
> >    /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/
> >
> > would be the better choice? The script itself used python2.1
> > at earlier times.
> 
> mmmm, is this a script that the users are supposed to execute from the
> terminal (like any other programs they have installed) or it's a
> module?
> 
> if it's the former supposition, then /usr/bin is the right place
> (without extensions) else use setup.py with distutils/setuptools and
> python-support, and they'll do the right.
> 

I was not accurate enough. In the package umlrun, two executables

    /usr/bin/umli      and      /usr/bin/umlrun

each use a python module that the previous maintainer chose to put at

    /usr/lib/site-python/umlrun.py.

Since this directory is depreciated in the present day policy,
I am, in my repackaging of that orphaned package, now trying to move
this module to either

    /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/

or

    /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/.

The module itself only demands python2.1, thus I was imagining
the standard package python2.4-minimal as dependency, and would
pick the first alternative. Any objections?


Best regards

Mats Erik Andersson