On Fri, Jun 03, 2005, Tres Seaver wrote:
> I uploaded a set of packages last night which extend Python or Zope (in
> ways similar to the 'perl-<foo>' packages). I have a couple of
> questions about the work I did:
>
> - The Python add-ons just do the "simplest thing", which is to drop the
> various artifacts into '<prefix>/lib/python/site-packages'. They do
> not create package-specific directories under '<prefix>/lib'.
>
> An alternate approach would be to create such a directory, e.g.
> '<prefix>/lib/python-<bar>', and then drop a 'bar.pth' file into
> the 'site-packages' directory.
I think it is fine to drop them directly into the python subtree as they
are named "python-xxx" and the "perl-xxx" packages do a similar thing in
the perl subtree.
> - The Zope add-ons *do* create a package-specific lib directory, and
> then symlink the actual Product directory from there into the
> Zope "instance home" products directory,
> '<prefix>/var/zope/Products'.
>
> The difference in approach is due to the fact that I just used Python's
> distutils support to install the Python add-ons, whereas I was following
> my earlier model (from the 'zope-cmf' package) for the Zope add-ons.
> Which approach fits better with the OpenPkg way?
As the packages are named "zope-xxx" I think it better fits that it both
depends on "zope" and its directory structure and also directly installs
into it. There is no real benefit of having them in a separate directory
as they cannot be used without the other Zope pieces anway, right? So I
would say, convert even the zope-xxx to the same model as perl-xxx and
python-xxx.
Ralf S. Engelschall
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.engelschall.com
______________________________________________________________________
The OpenPKG Project www.openpkg.org
Developer Communication List [email protected]
