On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 09:57:42AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
| > That'd be /usr/share (lib is for arch-dependant data, see FHS)
|
| ... except that the Python policy seems to have bizarre rules about
| this. I assume this is because .pyc files are placed in the same
| directory as the correspondi
On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 12:19:58AM +, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 06:07:58PM -0400, Marco Paganini wrote:
> > Yes. "ask.py" is just the main executable. It imports all the other modules
> > (which have the .py extension and should be in /usr/lib/ask or something).
>
> That'd
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 06:37:31PM -0400, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 06:07:58PM -0400, Marco Paganini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> was heard to say:
> > On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 05:57:42PM -0400, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> >
> > > > That would not be a problem, as no other program impor
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 06:07:58PM -0400, Marco Paganini wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 05:57:42PM -0400, Daniel Burrows wrote:
>
> > > That would not be a problem, as no other program imports ask.py...
> >
> > Are you confident that no other program will ever want to "import ask"?
>
> Yes.
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 06:07:58PM -0400, Marco Paganini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
was heard to say:
> On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 05:57:42PM -0400, Daniel Burrows wrote:
>
> > > That would not be a problem, as no other program imports ask.py...
> >
> > Are you confident that no other program will ever
Hi,
> > Yes. "ask.py" is just the main executable. It imports all the other modules
> > (which have the .py extension and should be in /usr/lib/ask or something).
>
> That'd be /usr/share (lib is for arch-dependant data, see FHS)
Oops, sorry! Slippery fingers. I meant /usr/share...
Regards,
Pag
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 05:48:17PM -0400, Marco Paganini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
was heard to say:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> > I think it's worth pointing out that if a file called "ask.py" is in
> > /usr/bin, the statement:
> >
> > import ask
> >
> > from a Python program in /usr/bin which hasn't modif
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 05:57:42PM -0400, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> > That would not be a problem, as no other program imports ask.py...
>
> Are you confident that no other program will ever want to "import ask"?
Yes. "ask.py" is just the main executable. It imports all the other modules
(which
Hi Daniel,
> I think it's worth pointing out that if a file called "ask.py" is in
> /usr/bin, the statement:
>
> import ask
>
> from a Python program in /usr/bin which hasn't modified its sys.path
> will, unless I am terribly confused, pick up ask.py instead of whatever
> module it was looki
Hi Marcello,
> > Euh, I think you messed up. Marco *is* upstream.
>
> That doesn't preclude whackig upstream with a cluebat :-) Here, he can
> use mine.
I tried whacking myself repeatedly with the cluebat. Unfortunately, it was
not as effective as whacking someone else. But I think I got th
Marco Paganini wrote:
> I'm packaging a Python program called "ask" for distribution. Currently,
> the main executable is called "ask.py". It seems unusual (and why not say,
> *ugly*) to have the language extension added to the program, but in this
> case, it was a deliberate decision to avoid
On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 08:26:44PM -0400, Marco Paganini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
was heard to say:
> I'm packaging a Python program called "ask" for distribution. Currently,
> the main executable is called "ask.py". It seems unusual (and why not say,
> *ugly*) to have the language extension added to t
> > a. Whack upstream with a cluebat.
>
> Euh, I think you messed up. Marco *is* upstream.
That doesn't preclude whackig upstream with a cluebat :-) Here, he can
use mine.
--
Marcelo
Chris writes:
> $ ls /usr/bin/*openoffice*
> /usr/bin/openoffice
> What is dumb about that? The thread is about naming of files within
> /usr/bin.
Since the package is named openoffice.org supposedly for trademark reasons
I assumed that the binary was as well.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 01:24:37PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
> > > I'm packaging a Python program called "ask" for distribution.
> > > Currently, the main executable is called "ask.py".
> >
> > a. Whack upstream with a cluebat.
>
> Euh, I think you messed up. Marco *is* upstream.
>
> So perh
> > I'm packaging a Python program called "ask" for distribution.
> > Currently, the main executable is called "ask.py".
>
> a. Whack upstream with a cluebat.
Euh, I think you messed up. Marco *is* upstream.
On the other hand, Marco being upstream defeats John's argument:
> Leave it. The pro
On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 07:50:07PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> Besides, if dumb names were a problem we'd do something about
> openoffice.org.
$ ls /usr/bin/*openoffice*
/usr/bin/openoffice
What is dumb about that? The thread is about naming of files within
/usr/bin.
Chris
pgpsBIj7fhkCn.pgp
D
On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 08:26:44PM -0400, Marco Paganini wrote:
> I'm packaging a Python program called "ask" for distribution.
> Currently, the main executable is called "ask.py".
a. Whack upstream with a cluebat.
b. Repeat a.
c. What happens when the program gets reimplemented in another
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Well, so far, it's "keep the extension", which is good as it won't break
existing installations and create confusion...
Thanks,
Paga
On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 05:55:48PM -0700, Steve C. Lamb wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 07:50:07PM -0500, John Hasle
On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 07:50:07PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> Besides, if dumb names were a problem we'd do something about
> openoffice.org.
Besides, for people who work with Python they often see the .py extension
and don't consider it any more dumb than, say, .pl, .sh, .rb(?) and others.
Paga writes:
> What would be the best approach, to leave the program as "ask.py"
> (unusual) or rename it to "ask" (possibility of name conflicts and
> breakage of existing installations)?
Leave it. The program will be known as "ask.py" everywhere outside
Debian. Changing the name is asking for
21 matches
Mail list logo
