[Distutils] [Python Language Summit] Distutils / Packaging survey

[Ben Finney]

David Cournapeau <david at ar.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp> writes:

> They are not arbitrary - they come from standard usage and have a
> rationale, at least on Unix

Agreed with this.

> (datadir for arch independent, and libdir for arch dependent, to
> simplify).

I think you've not only simplified, you've done so in the wrong
direction. I'd say instead that “datadir” is for *non-executable*
files, and “libdir” for executable.

That something is non-executable usually means that it's
“architecture-independent”, and traditionally, “executable” has
meant “architecture-dependent”, but I don't think that's a necessary
distinction here. Viz. the placement of the Python standard library,
including mostly architecture-independent executable files, in a
“libdir”.

> But you mostly do not need to care, as a developer: .py files would
> be considered as data files, […]

That would lead to a misguided attempt to keep ‘foo.py’ separate from
the resulting ‘foo.pyc’, which would be far more pain than it's worth
AFAICT.

Rather, ‘foo.py’ (and ‘foo.pyc’) files would both be identified as
*executable* resources, and thence installed to the same location.

-- 
 \                   “Too many Indians spoil the golden egg.” —Sir Joh |
  `\                                                   Bjelke-Petersen |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney