On Friday, January 27, 2012 3:15:44 PM UTC-7, John Nagle wrote:
> On 1/25/2012 9:26 AM, bvdp wrote:
> > I'm having a disagreement with a buddy on the packaging of a program
> > we're doing in Python. It's got a number of modules and large number
> > of library files. The library stuff is data, not
On Thursday, January 26, 2012 8:20:24 PM UTC-7, Michael Torrie wrote:
>
> > I'm getting mangled by the debian maintainers and friends who seem to
> > believe that python modules need to go into /usr/lib/python...
>
> I guess the maintainers aren't distinguishing between python apps and
> their sub
On 1/25/2012 9:26 AM, bvdp wrote:
I'm having a disagreement with a buddy on the packaging of a program
we're doing in Python. It's got a number of modules and large number
of library files. The library stuff is data, not code.
How much data? Megabytes? Gigabytes?
I have some modules w
On 01/26/2012 09:30 AM, bvdp wrote:
> Yes. I agree and it's nice to have a confirmation. So far I've been
> putting all my program into /usr/local/share/MYPROGRAM and then
> simply inserting an entry into sys.path.
>
> Then, for other systems, I check a few common locations until I find
> the inst
On 25/01/2012 17:26, bvdp wrote:
Well once you think about distributing, here is the guide line I use:
- If it is meant as a library that can be 'imported' in python:
> site-packages is the place to be, some linux distros are rather
creative with them so be careful.
- If it is a 'stand-alon
I think that /usr/*/python-whatever/site-packages and related directories
are very much overused in the python world, and tend to cause problems
eventually - EG when you need to install two versions of a program on the
same machine, same interpreter.
I prefer to provide a configure script that acc
On Wednesday, January 25, 2012 8:30:54 PM UTC-7, Michael Torrie wrote:
> Unless you are writing a python library that will be used by others, I
> don't think that where you put your files has anything to do with being
> "pythonic" or not. Just do what works for your OS.
Yes. I agree and it's nic
On 01/25/2012 03:29 PM, bvdp wrote:
> Right now my program does a search for modules in "all the normal
> places", which seems to work for windows, mac and linux. Once the
> modules are found I just insert that location into sys.path[0].
>
> Which permits the modules to reside anywhere on the HDD.
> I would not put anything in the toplevel Python folder. You need to
> place everything under site-packages --> "Python27\Lib\site-packages
> \PackageName\blah". Of course client created files should be saved to
> a more accessible place.
Oh. Just looking at my setup (Ubunutu 11.10) and I see th
Right now my program does a search for modules in "all the normal places",
which seems to work for windows, mac and linux. Once the modules are found I
just insert that location into sys.path[0].
Which permits the modules to reside anywhere on the HDD. However, I have
feeling that this isn't qu
I would just like to make a strong plea that you make it possible to
install in places other than /usr. Bascially, 'python setup.py install
--prefix /some/alternative/place' should work.
Evan
On 01/25/2012 11:26 AM, bvdp wrote:
I'm having a disagreement with a buddy on the packaging of a pro
On Jan 25, 11:26 am, bvdp wrote:
> I've got 2 issues with this:
>
> 1. I don't know if putting data in the python tree is "legit".
> 2. I'd have to do a lot of rewritting. My modules currently use:
I would not put anything in the toplevel Python folder. You need to
place everything under s
I'm having a disagreement with a buddy on the packaging of a program we're
doing in Python. It's got a number of modules and large number of library
files. The library stuff is data, not code.
I'd like to put the modules in /usr/lib/pythonX.Y/mymodules or wherever
setup.py decides. And the dat
13 matches
Mail list logo
