On Apr 30, 2012, at 12:08 PM, Simon McVittie wrote: >On 30/04/12 10:39, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: >> [Piotr Ożarowski, 2012-04-30] >>> I will change that to /usr/share/package-name/module and >>> /usr/lib/package-name/module if no one objects >>> (adding /usr/share or /usr/lib to sys.path is not a good idea, we don't >>> do that so policy should be updated) >> >> on the second thought, "module" in above path is a directory name >> (with final paths: /usr/share/module/module.py or /usr/lib/module/module.so) >> so it doesn't need updates, I guess... > >I think it would still be clearer to say >/usr/share/package-name/module.py, /usr/lib/package-name/module.so, >assuming the library-user code involves "import module"?
Debian "package-name" or Python "package-name"? :) >(Or invent an example like Debian package foo containing Python module >foolib, which would lead to something like /usr/share/foo/foolib.py, >/usr/lib/foo/foolib.so or /usr/share/foo/foolib/__init__.py, or use a >real example like virt-manager or guake) +1, although the Debian package would be python-foo (or python3-foo) for a Python package named foo. I think your suggested change and a good example would improve the document. Cheers, -Barry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120430105003.1822a...@resist.wooz.org
