On 2015-11-30 09:19, Jan Rękorajski wrote:
A food for thought - what about dropping PLD specific hack with with
lib<->share split?
What do you choose?
– binaries (*.so) in /usr/share and conflicts between x86_64 and i686
packages
– all python modules in %{_libdir} and no more 'noarch' Python packages
(as %{_libdir} is different on x86_64 and i686)
– all python modules in /usr/lib – pure python modules could stay
'noarch', but binary modules (*.so) would conflict between x86_64 and
i686 packages
However we handle dropping the the split, it will cause new problems.
It constantly gives us grief with virtualenv.
Does it?
The funny thing is that original Python sources have notion of different
locations for platform-dependent and platform-independent modules. But
those paths, on 'unix' differ by the prefix (--prefix vs --exec-prefix),
not further path. I have no idea why they have chosen to ignore FHS.
Other distributions have to patch this too, unless they ignore FHS or
mult-lib installations too.
Jacek
_______________________________________________
pld-devel-en mailing list
pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org
http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
