Fred Wright via devel <devel@ntpsec.org>: > > We constanlty have issues with conflicting system installed and user > > installed ntpd. it will be a lot of fun when the distro updates > > ntpd and breaks the user installed ntpd. That was not a problem > > before this patch. > > Interestingly enough, this last paragraph is both completely irrelevant to > the issue at hand, and simultaneously gets to the crux of the matter. :-) > > The whole issue being discussed here is the install location for *Python > libraries*. Nothing else. Since the classic NTP package doesn't use > Python at all, a conflict in this area is impossible. There might, of > course, be conflicts in *programs*, *config files*, or whatever, but that > has absolutely nothing to do with the Python library path.
Fred, this logic had not escaped me. > *However*, once distros start including ntpsec instead of classic ntpd, > this sort of conflict will become possible, and FHS compliance will > matter. But if we can assume that no distro is including a pre-1.0 > ntpsec, then the conflict doesn't exist for 1.0 by definition. If we can > punt on FHS compliance for 1.0, then that removes the time pressure for > figuring out the right way to get Linux Python to play nicely with FHS. I've been semi-quiet because I've been researching one possible alternative, but I think thqr wasn't viable and there's only one possibility left. More later today. -- <a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a> My work is funded by the Internet Civil Engineering Institute: https://icei.org Please visit their site and donate: the civilization you save might be your own. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@ntpsec.org http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel