Re: Proposed modification to the Python Policy
Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de> writes:
> Jérôme Marant writes:
> > I do propose that we install all architecture independant modules
> > in /usr/share and all architecture dependent modules in /usr/lib
> > as it has always been.
>
> assume we have a package with an architecture independant module and
> an architecture dependent module. Then we have to split it in share
> and lib? ugly. And it's unsupported upstream by distutils.
I made a mistake: i should have said "files" rather than "modules".
No need to split the package.
This would make sense IMHO. (BTW, Brendan O'Dea did the same with
perl).
For instance, all lib-dynload files would go to /usr/lib and all
.py would go to /usr/share
With distuptils, you can do that with some options among the following:
Options for 'install' command:
--prefix installation prefix
--exec-prefix (Unix only) prefix for platform-specific files
--home (Unix only) home directory to install under
--install-base base installation directory (instead of --prefix or --
home)
--install-platbase base installation directory for platform-specific files
(instead of --exec-prefix or --home)
--root install everything relative to this alternate root
directory
--install-purelib installation directory for pure Python module
distributions
--install-platlib installation directory for non-pure module distributions
--install-lib installation directory for all module distributions
(overrides --install-purelib and --install-platlib)
> I don't see this proposal as necessary for the transition from 1.5 to
> 2.1, so I would like to see it not as part of the policy during the
> transition.
No, this is not necessary but as we are writing the Policy, I would like
to see it for the near future. I am personaly ready to implement this in
my packages.
Cheers,
--
Jérôme Marant <jerome.marant@free.fr>
<jerome@marant.org>
http://marant.org
Reply to: