23.10.2013 07:23, Kubilay Kocak wrote:
Hi Volodymyr,
While it is a desirable (and planned) long-terms goal to have consistent
behaviour in the ports tree, there is not *yet* a formal or specific
documented policy regarding Python module packaging in FreeBSD.
And that's bad.
A number of maintainers *do* however, make changes to upstream modules
by explicitly setting zip_safe=False in setup.py, or overriding the use
of setuptools with plain-old distutils, resulting in the module being
installed uncompressed.
Or like me overriding the way egg is installed to uncompress it.
For those modules or ports that *dont* currently do this such as
www/trac, the end-user *can* use the PYTHON_EGG_CACHE environment
variable that points to a writable area of the filesystem to address the
behaviour.
While this is possibly true for www/trac this can be not so funny for
some other modules that are actually used in restricted env or even
chroot without possibility to write anything anywhere. Using compressed
eggs in such environments is a bit painful...
In short, I recommend that this PR be changed, assigning it to the
maintainer of the www/trac port for follow-up and resolution.
Actually I started this pr because I want some Python module package
policy to emerge and possibly to explicitly specify one recommended way
of dealing with such packages. As you wrote many port maintainers
specifically override the order of things in different inconsistent ways
and even this makes packages more useful having a lot of different
patches and crotches throughout the ports tree is definitely not a good
thing.
--
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-python@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-python
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-python-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
