On June 18, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote:
> For what concern Debian, the intallation home will still be /usr/lib/zope
> untill python fully comply FHS[1] (http://python.org/sf/588756). I'll probably
> move it to /usr/lib/python2.1/site-packages in future, but i'm still not sure.

Well, if you're going to have a policy shoot-out:

> /usr/lib includes object files, libraries, and internal binaries
> that are not intended to be executed directly by users or shell
> scripts.
> Applications may use a single subdirectory under /usr/lib. If an
> application uses a subdirectory, all architecture-dependent data
> exclusively used by the application should be placed within that
> subdirectory. For example, the perl5 subdirectory for Perl 5 modules
> and libraries.
> Miscellaneous architecture-independent application-specific static
> files and subdirectories should be placed in /usr/share.


> The /usr/share hierarchy is for all read-only architecture
> independent data files.

I think most of us would agree that .py(c) files are *libraries* and
not *data files*.  Data files would be the skeleton instance

Perhaps it is a little premature preaching about conformance to the
FHS when Zope's package doesn't conform to the Python policy (to which
I cannot link because I cannot find a static URL - see

> Debian has choosed to be be strictly compliant to FHS[1], including
> it in the Debian Packaing Policy.

As demonstrated, Python complies with the FHS.  I see no active or
archived "serious policy violation" bugs relating to Python's FHS

What is the status of the Python Policy?


 Adrian van den Dries                           [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Development team                               www.dev.flow.com.au
 FLOW Communications Pty. Ltd.                  www.flow.com.au

Zope-Dev maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

Reply via email to