Re: /usr/lib vs. /usr/share

2001-07-06 Thread Carey Evans
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

Re: /usr/lib vs. /usr/share

2001-07-06 Thread Harry Henry Gebel
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

Re: /usr/lib vs. /usr/share

2001-07-06 Thread Radovan Garabik
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

/usr/lib vs. /usr/share

2001-07-06 Thread Kevin Turner
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