On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 07:05:51 -0700 (PDT), Paul Boddie
wrote:
> No, it's the problem of the Pythonic packaging brigade that package
> retrieval, building and installing is combined into one unsatisfactory
> whole.
Brigade? That implies a disciplined and systematic approach..
I would suggest a be
Robin Becker writes:
> Florian Diesch wrote:
> .
>>
>>>From /usr/lib/python2.6/site.py:
>>
>> ,
>> | For Debian and derivatives, this sys.path is augmented with directories
>> | for packages distributed within the distribution. Local addons go
>> | into /usr/local/lib/python/dist-pack
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Diez B. Roggisch wrote:
> Paul Boddie wrote:
>
>> On 26 Aug, 17:48, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, if you are thinking about Debian Linux, it's not as much
>>> "ripping out" as "splitting into a separate package with a non-obvious
>>> name". Annoying at times, b
On 27 Aug, 15:27, "Diez B. Roggisch" wrote:
>
> You mean it's the problem of the python packaging that it can't deal with
> RPMs, debs, tgzs, OSX bundles, MSIs and
> ?
No, it's the problem of the Pythonic packaging brigade that package
retrieval, building and installing is combined into one unsat
Paul Boddie wrote:
> On 26 Aug, 17:48, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
>>
>> Well, if you are thinking about Debian Linux, it's not as much
>> "ripping out" as "splitting into a separate package with a non-obvious
>> name". Annoying at times, but hardly an atrocity.
>
> Indeed. Having seen two packages toda
Florian Diesch wrote:
.
From /usr/lib/python2.6/site.py:
,
| For Debian and derivatives, this sys.path is augmented with directories
| for packages distributed within the distribution. Local addons go
| into /usr/local/lib/python/dist-packages, Debian addons
| install into /usr/{l
On 26 Aug, 17:48, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
>
> Well, if you are thinking about Debian Linux, it's not as much
> "ripping out" as "splitting into a separate package with a non-obvious
> name". Annoying at times, but hardly an atrocity.
Indeed. Having seen two packages today which insisted on setuptools
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:20:35 +0100, Robin Becker wrote:
> Jorgen Grahn wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 12:46:13 +0200, Diez B. Roggisch
>
>> Well, if you are thinking about Debian Linux, it's not as much
>> "ripping out" as "splitting into a separate package with a non-obvious
>> name". Ann
Robin Becker writes:
> I was surprised a couple of days ago when trying to assist a colleage
> with his python setup on a ubuntu 9.04 system.
>
> We built our c-extensions and manually copied them into place, but
> site-packages wasn't there. It seems that ubuntu now wants stuff to go
> into lib/
Jorgen Grahn wrote:
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 12:46:13 +0200, Diez B. Roggisch
Well, if you are thinking about Debian Linux, it's not as much
"ripping out" as "splitting into a separate package with a non-obvious
name". Annoying at times, but hardly an atrocity.
so where is the official plac
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 12:46:13 +0200, Diez B. Roggisch
wrote:
> Robin Becker wrote:
>
>> I was surprised a couple of days ago when trying to assist a colleage with
>> his python setup on a ubuntu 9.04 system.
>>
>> We built our c-extensions and manually copied them into place, but
>> site-packages
Robin Becker writes:
> What is the relation between dist-packages/site-packages if any? Is
> this just a name change or is there some other problem being
> addressed?
The problem being addressed is to maintain the distinction between
OS-vendor-managed files versus sysadmin-managed files. That is
Robin Becker wrote:
> I was surprised a couple of days ago when trying to assist a colleage with
> his python setup on a ubuntu 9.04 system.
>
> We built our c-extensions and manually copied them into place, but
> site-packages wasn't there. It seems that ubuntu now wants stuff to go
> into lib/p
13 matches
Mail list logo
