Here is one case.... it is a python to C++ compiler/parser (depending on who's dictionary you use.)
ss.py is the *main* program, but it is going to expect to find the other python scripts and the compiled c++ object files in the same dir....(I think) This definitely feels like an abuse of /opt/ but I don't think that splitting this up all over the place is going to work either. I have 99.44% convinced myself that /usr/share/$pkgname is appropriate with a scipt in /usr/bin that calls the executable under /usr/share/ And as a side note, I agree that /usr/lib/python-2.x/site-packages/ isn't appropriate for normal *apps* either, unless they are expressly meant to be import-able into other python apps as a module(see boaconstructor for an example) Make sense? --Todd [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ pacman -Ql shedskin shedskin /opt/ shedskin /opt/shedskin/ shedskin /opt/shedskin/LICENSE shedskin /opt/shedskin/README shedskin /opt/shedskin/bert.py shedskin /opt/shedskin/builtin_.cpp shedskin /opt/shedskin/builtin_.hpp shedskin /opt/shedskin/builtin_.o shedskin /opt/shedskin/builtin_.py shedskin /opt/shedskin/copy_.cpp shedskin /opt/shedskin/copy_.hpp shedskin /opt/shedskin/copy_.o shedskin /opt/shedskin/copy_.py shedskin /opt/shedskin/hoppa shedskin /opt/shedskin/libss.a shedskin /opt/shedskin/math_.cpp shedskin /opt/shedskin/math_.hpp shedskin /opt/shedskin/math_.o shedskin /opt/shedskin/math_.py shedskin /opt/shedskin/random_.cpp shedskin /opt/shedskin/random_.hpp shedskin /opt/shedskin/random_.o shedskin /opt/shedskin/random_.py shedskin /opt/shedskin/sets_.cpp shedskin /opt/shedskin/sets_.hpp shedskin /opt/shedskin/sets_.o shedskin /opt/shedskin/sets_.py shedskin /opt/shedskin/setup.py shedskin /opt/shedskin/ss.py shedskin /opt/shedskin/sys_.cpp shedskin /opt/shedskin/sys_.hpp shedskin /opt/shedskin/sys_.o shedskin /opt/shedskin/sys_.py shedskin /opt/shedskin/test.py shedskin /opt/shedskin/unit.py shedskin /opt/shedskin/uuf250-010.cnf shedskin /usr/ shedskin /usr/bin/ shedskin /usr/bin/ss On Wednesday 28 September 2005 11:24 am, Aaron Griffin wrote: > On 9/28/05, Andrew Conkling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You should probably be installing the python scripts to site-packages, > > e.g. via distutils. That's the right place for Python stuff, but I'm > > not sure about the rest. > > > > http://www.python.org/sigs/distutils-sig/doc/ > > That's not nessecarilly true - site-packages is for python _modules_. > If it is a series of stand-alone applications they do not belong in > site-packages. > > > On 9/28/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > What is the *right* place to install an application that is basically > > > just a directory full of python scripts and such... An example app > > > would be shedskin > > > http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?do_Details=1&ID=2254 . > > Hmmm, I don't have time to build and look into it - can you give me > the filelist from makepkg (just email the text, it can't be that > much). For the most part, everything should be under /usr, with > binaries in bin and data in share/<pkgname> - I'd like to see a list > of what you're installing to better diagnose. > > > > I am currently dumping the whole thing into /opt/$pkgname but it seems > > > like an abuse of /opt. Would /usr/share/$pkgname be better? Or is > > > somewhere else more appropriate? > > I personally feel /opt is overused. /opt, to me, is for very large > piles of related stuff. kde, gnome, and the mozilla suite should go > there, but something like bittorrent (which was in /opt a while back) > doesn't belong there - it's only 3 or 4 executables and some python > site-packages. > > - phrak - > > _______________________________________________ > arch mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch _______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
