David Cournapeau <da...@ar.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp> writes: > Ben Finney wrote: > > I think you've not only simplified, you've done so in the wrong > > direction. I'd say instead that “datadir” is for > > *non-executable* files, and “libdir” for executable. > > It depends on what you mean by executable: it is obviously wrong > when executable = have the executable bit, so what do you mean by > executable ?
We could diverge into a long discussion about what “executable” means; but let's not. I'm willing to allow a common sense meaning to serve for the purpose of this discussion. The issue is less about what Ben Finney or David Cornapeau think it means. The issue is more whether it's a useful distinction. > > That something is non-executable usually means that it's > > “architecture-independent”, and traditionally, “executable” > > has meant “architecture-dependent”, > > I don't understand this in the context of python: most python > executables are architecture independent (python scripts). Yes, that's mainly my point. Whether a particular set of bits is “architecture-dependent” or “architecture-independent” is rather orthogonal, in Python, to whether it's an executable program library. -- \ “Jealousy: The theory that some other fellow has just as little | `\ taste.” —Henry L. Mencken | _o__) | Ben Finney _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
