> Actually, I meant that (among other things) it should be clarified that > it's alright to e.g. put .pyc and data files inside Python library > directories, and NOT okay to split them up.
Phillip, Just to be clear: I understand you are not in favour of re-packaging data from python projects (projects in the distutils sense), separately and I strongly agree with this view. Are you opposed to developers choosing to *not* bundle data as python package data ? How much, if any, of the setuptools / distutils conventions do you think could sensibly peculate up to the LSB ? There are a couple of cases in ubuntu/debian (as of 6.10 edgy) that I think are worth considering: python2.4 profile (pstats) etc, was removed due to licensing issues rather than FHS. Should not be an issue for python2.5 but what, in general, can a vendor do except break python if their licensing policy cant accommodate all of pythons batteries ? python2.4 distutils is excluded by default. This totally blows in my view but I appreciate this one is a minefield of vendor packaging politics. It has to be legitimate for Python / setuptools too provide packaging infrastructure and conventions that are viable on more than linux. Is it unreasonable for a particular vendor to decide that, on their platform, the will disable Python's packaging conventions ? Is there any way to keep the peace on this one ? Cheers, Robin On 27/11/06, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 02:38 PM 11/27/2006 +0100, Jan Matejek wrote: > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >Hash: SHA1 > > > >Phillip J. Eby napsal(a): > > > Just a suggestion, but one issue that I think needs addressing is the FHS > > > language that leads some Linux distros to believe that they should change > > > Python's normal installation layout (sometimes in bizarre ways) (...) > > > Other vendors apparently also patch Python in various > > > ways to support their FHS-based theories of how Python should install > > > files. > > > >+1 on that. There should be a clear (and clearly presented) idea of how > >Python is supposed to be laid out in the distribution-provided /usr > >hierarchy. And it would be nice if this idea complied to FHS. > > > >It would also be nice if somebody finally admitted the existence of > >/usr/lib64 and made Python aware of it ;e) > > Actually, I meant that (among other things) it should be clarified that > it's alright to e.g. put .pyc and data files inside Python library > directories, and NOT okay to split them up. > > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list > Python-Dev@python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: > http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/robinbryce%40gmail.com > _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com