El Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 12:14:00AM -0700, Donovan Baarda va escriure: > > My proposal for those cases is simple: why don't we remove > > /usr/lib/site-python/ from the python path and link the contents of that > > directory on /usr/lib/pythonX.Y/site-python/ on the postinstall of pure > > python packages that install their code on /usr/lib/site-python/? > > > > With this system, when a new pythonX.Y package enters the archive it can > > build his own linked version of /usr/lib/site-python/, leaving the > > compiled > > files on /usr/lib/pythonX.Y/site-python/. The main advantage is that the > > package is available to all installed python versions and supports zero > > work > > transitions. > [...] > > Of course all that should be elaborated and formalized a little bit to > > enter > > into the Policy document, but I would like to know what do others thing > > about it and know what other solutions or changes have been proposed for > > the > > next version of the policy, if any. > > This is exactly like the proposal already described but not yet > supported in the current Python Policy. The only difference is it > suggests using /usr/lib/python/site-packages instead of > /usr/lib/site-python.
Right, I should have re-read the policy before sending the e-mail. > The only reason this is not yet supported is no-one has yet made it > work. The closest thing is the work done on python-central... OK, then I'll take a look and see if I can write a script to support it, it seems quite simple but maybe I'm missing something... -- Sergio Talens-Oliag <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://people.debian.org/~sto/> Key fingerprint = 29DF 544F 1BD9 548C 8F15 86EF 6770 052B B8C1 FA69
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
