[Python-Dev] Python and the Linux Standard Base (LSB)

[Robin Bryce]

> Actually, I meant that (among other things) it should be clarified that
> it's alright to e.g. put .pyc and data files inside Python library
> directories, and NOT okay to split them up.

Phillip, Just to be clear: I understand you are not in favour of
re-packaging data from python projects (projects in the distutils
sense), separately and I strongly agree with this view. Are you
opposed to developers choosing to *not* bundle data as python package
data ? How much, if any, of the setuptools / distutils conventions do
you think could sensibly peculate up to the LSB ?

There are a couple of cases in ubuntu/debian (as of 6.10 edgy) that I
think are worth considering:

python2.4 profile (pstats) etc, was removed due to licensing issues
rather than FHS. Should not be an issue for python2.5 but what, in
general, can a vendor do except break python if their licensing policy
cant accommodate all of pythons batteries ?


python2.4 distutils is excluded by default. This totally blows in my
view but I appreciate this one is a minefield of vendor packaging
politics. It has to be legitimate for Python / setuptools too provide
packaging infrastructure and conventions that are viable on more than
linux. Is it unreasonable for a particular vendor to decide that, on
their platform, the will disable Python's packaging conventions ? Is
there any way to keep the peace on this one ?


Cheers,
Robin


On 27/11/06, Phillip J. Eby <pje at telecommunity.com> wrote:
> At 02:38 PM 11/27/2006 +0100, Jan Matejek wrote:
> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >Hash: SHA1
> >
> >Phillip J. Eby napsal(a):
> > > Just a suggestion, but one issue that I think needs addressing is the FHS
> > > language that leads some Linux distros to believe that they should change
> > > Python's normal installation layout (sometimes in bizarre ways) (...)
> > > Other vendors apparently also patch Python in various
> > > ways to support their FHS-based theories of how Python should install
> > > files.
> >
> >+1 on that. There should be a clear (and clearly presented) idea of how
> >Python is supposed to be laid out in the distribution-provided /usr
> >hierarchy. And it would be nice if this idea complied to FHS.
> >
> >It would also be nice if somebody finally admitted the existence of
> >/usr/lib64 and made Python aware of it ;e)
>
> Actually, I meant that (among other things) it should be clarified that
> it's alright to e.g. put .pyc and data files inside Python library
> directories, and NOT okay to split them up.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/robinbryce%40gmail.com
>