On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 5:37 PM, David Cournapeau < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthias Klose wrote: > > > > - setuptools has the narrow minded view of a python package being > > contained in a single directory, which doesn't fit well when you > > do have common locations for include or doc files. Does the fork > > accept patches to change such limitations and allowing FHS > > compliant packages? > > Being self-contained is also a feature. People who package softwares > outside distributions like this, as you are surely aware. Personally, I > don't like that setuptools broke distutils install either (I prefer to > manage my packages with stow, because setuptools broke too many times my > setup for unknown reasons). > > There should be the possibility to do both kind of installs > (self-contained, or FHS compliant), but this is not so much a setuptools > issue as a distutils issue, isn't it ? Dealing with this in distutils > will be no fun, though... > Well, as long as things are clearly defined in the package, I guess FHS compliant package could be built with the same source tree. We could even install a distribution the FHS way or the self-contained way, as long as the tool knows what to put where. But that is already the case, a bit: For instance we have bdist_rpm, that builds rpms by mapping distutils metadata to rpm ones, The question is: starting with the current MetaData what would you miss to do a FHS installation ? Take a look at http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0345/ > > cheers, > > David > _______________________________________________ > Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig > -- Tarek Ziadé | Association AfPy | www.afpy.org Blog FR | http://programmation-python.org Blog EN | http://tarekziade.wordpress.com/
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
