On Fri, Jun 03, 2005, Tres Seaver wrote: > I uploaded a set of packages last night which extend Python or Zope (in > ways similar to the 'perl-<foo>' packages). I have a couple of > questions about the work I did: > > - The Python add-ons just do the "simplest thing", which is to drop the > various artifacts into '<prefix>/lib/python/site-packages'. They do > not create package-specific directories under '<prefix>/lib'. > > An alternate approach would be to create such a directory, e.g. > '<prefix>/lib/python-<bar>', and then drop a 'bar.pth' file into > the 'site-packages' directory.
I think it is fine to drop them directly into the python subtree as they are named "python-xxx" and the "perl-xxx" packages do a similar thing in the perl subtree. > - The Zope add-ons *do* create a package-specific lib directory, and > then symlink the actual Product directory from there into the > Zope "instance home" products directory, > '<prefix>/var/zope/Products'. > > The difference in approach is due to the fact that I just used Python's > distutils support to install the Python add-ons, whereas I was following > my earlier model (from the 'zope-cmf' package) for the Zope add-ons. > Which approach fits better with the OpenPkg way? As the packages are named "zope-xxx" I think it better fits that it both depends on "zope" and its directory structure and also directly installs into it. There is no real benefit of having them in a separate directory as they cannot be used without the other Zope pieces anway, right? So I would say, convert even the zope-xxx to the same model as perl-xxx and python-xxx. Ralf S. Engelschall [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.engelschall.com ______________________________________________________________________ The OpenPKG Project www.openpkg.org Developer Communication List openpkg-dev@openpkg.org