On 3/14/2012 12:10 PM, VanL wrote:
On 3/14/2012 10:56 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
Are you talking about 'install for all users' versus 'install for this
user only'? I have always done the former as I see no point to the
latter on my machine, even if another family member has an account.
Yes, but some people are on corporate machines that only allow "install
for this user" installations.
Ok. On such machines, system install (by vendor) == only 'base' install
== only 'all user' install.
I am fine with keeping the distinction between
> base installs (no py_version)
I have no idea what this means. As far as I can remember, each
installation of Python x.y (back to 1.3 for me, on DOS) has gone into a
pythonxy (no dot) directory, with subdirectories much as Jim J.
described.
I am referring to the currently-existing install schemes 'nt' ('install
for all users') and 'nt-user' ('install for this user only'). The
*current* layouts are described at
http://hg.python.org/distutils2/file/2cec52b682a9/distutils2/_backport/sysconfig.cfg:
L57-65:
[nt]
stdlib = {base}/Lib
platstdlib = {base}/Lib
purelib = {base}/Lib/site-packages
platlib = {base}/Lib/site-packages
include = {base}/Include
platinclude = {base}/Include
scripts = {base}/Scripts
data = {base}
Is this from 2.x? Currently, in 3.x, Scripts is tucked inside Tools, so
it seems to be scripts = {base}/Tools/Scripts
L86-93:
[nt_user]
stdlib = {userbase}/Python{py_version_nodot}
platstdlib = {userbase}/Python{py_version_nodot}
purelib = {userbase}/Python{py_version_nodot}/site-packages
platlib = {userbase}/Python{py_version_nodot}/site-packages
include = {userbase}/Python{py_version_nodot}/Include
scripts = {userbase}/Scripts
data = {userbase}
I am proposing that these change to:
[nt]
stdlib = {base}/lib
platstdlib = {base}/lib
purelib = {base}/lib/site-packages
platlib = {base}/lib/site-packages
include = {base}/include
platinclude = {base}/include
scripts = {base}/bin
data = {base}
[nt_user]
stdlib = {userbase}/python{py_version_short}
platstdlib = {userbase}/python{py_version_short}
purelib = {userbase}/python{py_version_short}/site-packages
platlib = {userbase}/python{py_version_short}/site-packages
include = {userbase}/python{py_version_short}/include
scripts = {userbase}/bin
data = {userbase}
OK, now I see where 'base' and 'userbase' come from. This is an area I
have ignored, so I only have a user view of the result.
All the other diuectories that Jim talked about would not be affected by
this proposal.
Does this make it clearer?
Now that we are speaking the same language, yes. Thank you.
Lowercasing 'Include' is fine with me. The only question is how it
affects tools in the field. Lowercasing 'Lib' would also be fine if
'libs' were changed to 'libraries' or 'headers' or perhaps even better,
'_libs', as normal users never have any reason to look therein. Just
something more easily distinguished from 'lib'. Same comment about tools.
The present installed directory scheme is a hodgepodge of almost all
caps, initial cap, and no cap. I would not mind more consistency. The
only directory I regularly look in is Lib, so my main concern is that
that be visually easy to find with my less than perfect vision.
--
Terry Jan Reedy
_______________________________________________
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
