soundmurderer <soundmurde...@gmail.com> added the comment: I tried applying nijel's 2.3.2 patch to Python 2.6.2 Makefile.pre.in, then configure/make/install with --bindir and --libdir flags to ./configure. It works in terms of producing the correct Makefile with LIBDIR and BINDIR that I want, but I get problems after the "make install" step when I launch the Python interpreter. This is what happens:
Could not find platform independent libraries <prefix> Could not find platform dependent libraries <exec_prefix> Consider setting $PYTHONHOME to <prefix>[:<exec_prefix>] 'import site' failed; use -v for traceback Python 2.6.2 (r262:71600, May 15 2009, 22:46:19) [GCC 4.1.2 20080704 (Red Hat 4.1.2-44)] on linux2 Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information. I can work around bad imports and "could not find libraries" by adding various subdirs of my desired LIBDIR to PYTHONHOME and PYTHONPATH. But the point is -- I thought that a *properly* installed Python distribution should know where to find its own standard libraries?? I should not have to hack PYTHONHOME and PYTHONPATH to get my local install to work... right? Once upon a time in 2.5.x days, I was able to do a local install using only ./configure --prefix, and that's it. No hacking PYTHONHOME or PYTHONPATH that I recall. How is the path to stuff like site.py getting encoded in the Python installation? Because I suspect that although nijel's patch may work for generating makefiles that put binaries/libs in the right place, that encoding step is still getting botched, requiring to manually set PYTHONHOME and PYTHONPATH as a workaround. Or maybe I am just confused. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue858809> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
