[Distutils] shebang line modified by setuptools

[Floris Bruynooghe]

On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 08:59:32PM +0200, Jan Matejek wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Barry Warsaw napsal(a):
> | On Apr 13, 2008, at 8:04 AM, Gael Varoquaux wrote:
> |> On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 07:59:21AM -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> |>> On Apr 12, 2008, at 9:41 PM, Stephen Waterbury wrote:
> |>>> I used to always set up my own Python[s] in /usr/local
> |>>> and put that first in my PATH, but I have gotten lazy lately, and
> |>>> sometimes it will bite me. ;)
> |>> On Debian and derivatives (e.g. Ubuntu) you might have even more fun.
> |>> They put /usr/local/lib/pythonX.Y/site-packages on the sys.path *of
> |>> the system python*!  This means that you can break your system Python
> |>> by installing a version of Python from source and then distutil'ing
> |>> things into there.  Astoundingly, this is promoted as a feature.
> |> I want it like that. You are confusing /opt and /usr/local.
> |
> |> This is the way I expect things to work. I do not want to install my
> |> own
> |> packages in "/usr/lib/pythonX.Y/site-packages". This is for apt to
> |> deal
> |> with, not for me.
> |
> | Actually, the solution that I believe is a good compromise is to find
> | some other path in /usr/local to augment the system Python's sys.path
> | with.  All I'm saying is that Python itself uses /usr/local/lib/
> | pythonX.Y/site-packages as the default from-source path, so if Debian
> | wants a /usr/local path, it can pick some other subdirectory path and
> | still meet its goals.  BTW, I believe Debian is unique here.  I talked
> | to the Fedora guys and I've talked to a few Gentoo guys and both
> | seemed surprised by Debian's policy here.
> 
> Actually, openSUSE does this too, and i've even gone as far as making
> distutils install into /usr/local by default. Several reasons to do this:
> a) FHS says, "user installed apps go into /usr/local, period"
> b) the user should have a clean site-packages directory for his needs
> c) we don't want the user to mess with package-managed modules in /usr
> 
> and finally, the reason i'm not very happy to "pick some other
> subdirectory path":
> d) it is simple to tell distutils that default prefix is /usr/local. It
> is complicated and ugly to tell it that by default it should go to
> /usr/local/some-directory-of-my-own, and still be able to revert to
> system-ish installation by supplying --prefix=/usr (following the same
> semantics that autoconf/automake is using).

I entirely agree with this (from Debian's POV).  This is the way many
things in the system works, you install shared libraries to
/usr/local/lib etc.  I think Python needs 3 clear site-packges
directories: 1) system 2) local-admin 3) user.

Personally I'd like to see PEP 370, which is trying to introduce 3)
above, move in that direction.  No idea how I go about that though.


Regards
Floris

-- 
Debian GNU/Linux -- The Power of Freedom
www.debian.org | www.gnu.org | www.kernel.org