On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 5:37 PM, David Cournapeau <david@ar.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp> wrote:
Matthias Klose wrote:
>
>  - setuptools has the narrow minded view of a python package being
>    contained in a single directory, which doesn't fit well when you
>    do have common locations for include or doc files. Does the fork
>    accept patches to change such limitations and allowing FHS
>    compliant packages?

Being self-contained is also a feature. People who package softwares
outside distributions like this, as you are surely aware. Personally, I
don't like that setuptools broke distutils install either (I prefer to
manage my packages with stow, because setuptools broke too many times my
setup for unknown reasons).

There should be the possibility to do both kind of installs
(self-contained, or FHS compliant), but this is not so much a setuptools
issue as a distutils issue, isn't it ? Dealing with this in distutils
will be no fun, though...

Well, as long as things are clearly defined in the package, I guess FHS compliant
package could be built with the same source tree.

We could even install a distribution the FHS way or the self-contained way,
as long as the tool knows what to put where.

But that is already the case, a bit:
For instance we have bdist_rpm, that builds rpms by mapping distutils metadata
to rpm ones,

The question is: starting with the current MetaData what would you miss to
do a FHS installation ? Take a look at http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0345/



 

cheers,

David
_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist  -  Distutils-SIG@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig



--
Tarek Ziadé | Association AfPy | www.afpy.org
Blog FR | http://programmation-python.org
Blog EN | http://tarekziade.wordpress.com/