On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 8:19 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > Speaking with many hats on, I think Debian Python has done a very admirable > job of integrating the Python ecosystem with Debian.
One of the pain points for users (I've had folks ask me this face-to-face) with that stuff was site-packages vs dist-packages. With your various Python hats on, can you explain why not just use "packages" instead of "site-packages" and "dist-packages"? The right way (IMO) would have been to put site packages in /usr/local/lib/pythonX.Y/packages and dist ones in /usr/lib/pythonX.Y/packages. Right now I have /usr/local/lib/pythonX.Y/dist-packages and /usr/lib/pythonX.Y/dist-packages, why is /usr/local dist-packages instead of site-packages? /usr/local is clearly not the location for distro installed packages. Why did Debian have to invent /usr/share/pyshared and symlink farms in /usr/lib/pythonX.Y instead of upstream having something like that in the default install and search paths? The location of .pyc files that are built at install time doesn't feel FHS-correct to me, /var/cache/python/X.Y/ seems better. Debian's Python build helper tools are still breeding like rabbits, there is a new one in experimental. I guess because the current ones dh_python2/dh_python3 don't handle packages that contain only code that runs on both python2 and python3 without changes. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAKTje6GZ4O1yv38kNkneu_jnDx7=r-dtx16uudiebvzneoz...@mail.gmail.com
