On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 03:00:49PM +0200, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
Jeremy Sanders wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
Why not os.exists() ?
s/os.exists/os.path.exists
Probably better :-)
Wouldn't checking for the lib file in either lib64 or lib be more reliable ?
That might be better. I don't know whether it's possible that more than one python is installed (one in /lib and one in /lib64).
That would certainly be possible.
Hmm, this is not entirely correct, e.g. Suse 9.2 puts the site-packages directory and all the other .py files into /usr/lib64 as well - not only the platforma dependent files.
Not sure what other AMD64 distros do... but I have a feeling the /lib/ should *always* be replaced by unix_platlib.
It looks like RedHat/Fedora patch their package to only put the platform specific files in /lib64 (that's how I made my patch).
Perhaps this isn't a good idea to do then :-( I wonder whether it would be possible for distribution to set these values somewhere. Couldn't python have a sys function to return its Makefile?
Fedora does it this way because of .noarch.rpm packages. Pure python libraries should run just fine both on x86 and x86_64, and since it's /usr/lib on x86, x86_64 has to know about /usr/lib too (which is sort of confusing). I believe you can get away without patching anything, if you do: from distutils import sysconfig print sysconfig.get_python_lib() to which you either pass plat_specific = 0 or 1. This will properly parse the right Makefile (which is probably what you ended up doing). Misa