[Python-Dev] Python and the Linux Standard Base (LSB)
"Martin v. Löwis"
martin at v.loewis.de
Thu Nov 30 07:12:33 CET 2006
Robin Bryce schrieb:
> Yes, especially with the regard to the level you pitch for LSB. I
> would go as far as to say that if this "contract in spirit" is broken
> by vendor repackaging they should:
> * Call the binaries something else because it is NOT python any more.
> * Setup the installation layout so that it does NOT conflict or
> overlap with the standard layout.
> * Call the whole package something else.
I think that would be counter-productive. If applied in a strict
sense, you couldn't call it Python anymore if it isn't in /usr/local.
I see no point to that.
It shouldn't be called Python anymore if it doesn't implement
the Python language specification. No vendor is modifying it
in such a way that
> Is it a bad idea to suggest that: Python grows a vendor_variant
> attribute somewhere in the standard lib; That its content is
> completely dictated by a new ./configure argument which is the empty
> string by default; And, request that it is left empty by re-packagers
> if the installation is 'reasonably standard' ?
I'm not sure in what applications that would be useful.
> I would strongly prefer _not_ write code that is conditional on such
> an attribute. However if there was a clear way for a vendor to
> communicate "This is not a standard python runtime" to the python run
> time, early failure (in the application) with informative error
> messages becomes much more viable.
Again: none of the vendors modifies Python in a way that what
you get is "not a standard Python runtime". They *all*
are "standard Python runtimes".
More information about the Python-Dev