Terry Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Okay, I stand corrected.
>
> Three people including two I know are long-time developers
> have replied that .pyc/.pyo files are indeed architecture
> independent, and that changing this is unlikely:
Thanks for having asked the question on comp.lang.pytho
Okay, I stand corrected.
Three people including two I know are long-time developers
have replied that .pyc/.pyo files are indeed architecture
independent, and that changing this is unlikely:
From: Michael Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Tuesday 18 November
2003 08:54:40 am
> Yes. .pycs are marshalle
On Monday 17 November 2003 03:35 pm, Florent Rougon wrote:
> Terry Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There was some discussion on comp.lang.python about
> > standardizing the bytecode awhile back, but the consensus
> > was that the standardized part of Python is *the source code*.
> > IMHO, t
Terry Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There was some discussion on comp.lang.python about
> standardizing the bytecode awhile back, but the consensus
> was that the standardized part of Python is *the source code*.
> IMHO, they (/we) don't want to encourage obfuscated
> distributions of Pyth
Terry Hancock writes:
> On Monday 17 November 2003 09:22 am, Florent Rougon wrote:
> > Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Le dim 16/11/2003 à 11:34, Matthias Klose a écrit :
> > >> There is no reason why /usr/share/ should be disallowed.
> > >
> > > That depends on whether .pyo files
On Monday 17 November 2003 09:22 am, Florent Rougon wrote:
> Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Le dim 16/11/2003 à 11:34, Matthias Klose a écrit :
> >> There is no reason why /usr/share/ should be disallowed.
> >
> > That depends on whether .pyo files really are architecture-independe
Hi,
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le dim 16/11/2003 à 11:34, Matthias Klose a écrit :
>> There is no reason why /usr/share/ should be disallowed.
>
> That depends on whether .pyo files really are architecture-independent.
> At least the generated files are different on different a
Le dim 16/11/2003 à 11:34, Matthias Klose a écrit :
> There is no reason why /usr/share/ should be disallowed.
That depends on whether .pyo files really are architecture-independent.
At least the generated files are different on different architectures.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette
Marco Paganini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, it would be /usr/share after all, as the .py modules in question are
> not architecture dependent, but *are* private.
>
> Correct?
Yes, I think you can go for /usr/share/package.
--
Florent
Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joss proposal is already incorporated into the proposed policy found
> in the python package.
>
> There is no reason why /usr/share/ should be disallowed. I
> changed the proposed policy to:
[private modules can now go to /usr/share/package/]
Good, tha
So, it would be /usr/share after all, as the .py modules in question are
not architecture dependent, but *are* private.
Correct?
Regards,
Paga
On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 11:34:59AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Florent Rougon writes:
> > Yes, but obviously you haven't read the Python policy draft
Florent Rougon writes:
> Yes, but obviously you haven't read the Python policy draft
> (/usr/share/doc/python/python-policy.txt.gz) nor Josselin's proposal at
> http://people.debian.org/~joss/python/python-policy-draft.html/index.html.
> They are must reads for anyone packaging something that is
>
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 10:51:44PM -0500, Marco Paganini wrote:
> >
> > Files used at runtime must not reside in /usr/share/doc, as this
> > directory can be deleted. They should rather be put in
> > /usr/share/package, and a symlink can be created in
> > /usr/share/doc/package/examples if this ma
Cory Dodt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I note that applications written in python, such as my aap package, go into
> /usr/lib/ 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 a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 10:20:16PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Another question: My application has some "skeleton" files that are copied
> > to the user's home directory by an installation program. Robert Millan (my
> > Debian guru, in the Cc:
Le mer 12/11/2003 à 20:32, Marco Paganini a écrit :
> - I should bytecompile the modules at installation time. This matches my
> original expectations. However, the Python Policy is not clear about
> where I should put the byte-compiled files. Is /usr/lib/package an
> acceptable place? It wou
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 02:32:30PM -0500, Marco Paganini wrote:
> Another question: My application has some "skeleton" files that are copied
> to the user's home directory by an installation program. Robert Millan (my
> Debian guru, in the Cc:) has recommended /usr/share/doc/package/something,
> bu
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 02:32:30PM -0500, Marco Paganini wrote:
> - According to Python's Policy, section 3.1.1, private modules should be
> installed in /usr/lib/site-python/module,
> /usr/lib/pythonX.Y/site-packages/module
> or /usr/lib/package. In my case, it makes more sense to install th
Hi Florent,
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 03:50:35PM +0100, Florent Rougon wrote:
> [Ugh, sorry for the double message, Marco]
Worry not! :)
> Yes, but obviously you haven't read the Python policy draft
> (/usr/share/doc/python/python-policy.txt.gz) nor Josselin's proposal at
> http://people.debian.or
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I note that applications written in python, such as my aap package, go into
/usr/lib/ 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 a
[Ugh, sorry for the double message, Marco]
Marco Paganini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi All,
Hi,
> I need to package a Python application that depends on multiple modules.
> I've been wondering about the correct location for the modules (both .py and
> .pyc files) in Debian. FHS states that a
Hi All,
I need to package a Python application that depends on multiple modules.
I've been wondering about the correct location for the modules (both .py and
.pyc files) in Debian. FHS states that architecture independent files should
go under /usr/share/packagename, which was my first guess at wh
22 matches
Mail list logo
