While we're policy-forming here, shouldn't python*/*.py and
python*/*.pyc go somewhere under /usr/share instead of /usr/lib, as it
is arch-independant? This would be an easy decision, except for those
pesky python .so extensions which are arch-specific and need to be in
/usr/lib.
"Miscellaneo
On Fri, Jul 06, 2001 at 12:02:39AM -0700, Kevin Turner wrote:
> While we're policy-forming here, shouldn't python*/*.py and
> python*/*.pyc go somewhere under /usr/share instead of /usr/lib, as it
> is arch-independant? This would be an easy decision, except for those
*.pyc _is_ arch-dependant (e
On Fri, Jul 06, 2001 at 12:02:39AM -0700, Kevin Turner wrote:
> While we're policy-forming here, shouldn't python*/*.py and
> python*/*.pyc go somewhere under /usr/share instead of /usr/lib, as it
> is arch-independant? This would be an easy decision, except for those
> pesky python .so extensions
Harry Henry Gebel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On the other hand, we could put the .py files in /usr/share if we moved the
> generated .pyc/.pyo files to /usr/lib (can (should?) compileall be modified
> to do this automatically?) We would keep sys.path to the standard, and
> since the .py files w
Gregor Hoffleit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> s/not well-behaved/buggy/: Any binary Python extension package that
> doesn't depend on 'python-base >= X.Y, python-base << X.Y+1' is buggy (a
> few weeks ago I asked in debian-python for volunteers that filed bug
> reports against those packages; don'
5 matches
Mail list logo
