Cory Dodt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I note that applications written in python, such as my aap package, go into
> /usr/lib/<package> per the policy (section 3.1.1), but linda does not support
> this. _all packages (most things written in Python) belong in /usr/share
> according to linda, but /usr/lib according to Python policy.
Well, that is the case if the modules need not be imported by a user
("private modules").
> Of course I obey the policy and not linda, but this is annoying.
> (Particularly so when linda itself is written in Python -- and doesn't obey
> the Python policy! :-)
Perhaps it will be time to file a bug when the Python policy is not a
draft any more...
> As long as I'm on my rant chair, is there any reason why packages with private
> modules need to be in /usr/lib? Python upstream doesn't care about private
> modules one way or the other.
You're right. I fail to understand this requirement of the Python policy
draft.
,----
| A program using /usr/bin/python as interpreter can come up with private
| python modules. These modules should be installed in
| /usr/lib/site-python/module, /usr/lib/pythonX.Y/site-packages/module
| (where pythonX.Y is the current python version) or /usr/lib/package. In
| the latter case, this directory should be added to sys.path at the
| program startup.
`----
If sys.path is to be altered by the program to make use of the modules,
it could very well be altered to contain /usr/share/package instead of
/usr/lib/package, at no cost.
The only reason I can see to the current recommendation is for
consistency within Python-related packages, since about everything else
belongs to /usr/lib.
Thoughts?
--
Florent
