[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnumed-devel] Re: Packages

From: David Grant
Subject: Re: [Gnumed-devel] Re: Packages
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 02:55:53 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (Windows/20040207)

Andreas Tille wrote:

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004, David Grant wrote:

About the debian packages, I forget why was some of the *.py files going
into site-packages and some of it in /usr/share?
I repeat: The only reason is that these packages are not ready yet (which
is the reason why the are not in an apt-get - able archive ...)
I understand.

The goal is to put them all *nicely* under site-packages.  This "nicely"
is the problem why it takes some time.  To my philosophy in this:  It might
seem more pragmatic to just put all the stuff under site-packages to get
something working anyhow instead of trying to polish something.  But my
packages currently work as well but (obviousely - because you are asking)
leave some problems open which should be adressed.  IMHO this fits the alpha
state of this software nicely and helps pointing out future problems.

How can putting things in /usr/share be official debian policy?  I can
see /usr/lib/gnumed but not /usr/share, according to the FHS.
We are (at least I am) talking here about architecture independant data like
bitmaps etc. which can not be found by any path.  Python modules are searched
along PYTHON_PATH and do not need any extra variable which has to be
configured because it is by default under /usr/lib/pythonX.Y/site-packages
where in the end all Python modules will be moved.  Once the package is
on the official Debian site you might bother me with bug reports if I
did something wrong here.

I understand what you are saying I think. I'm still just confused why according to here: some *.py stuff is going into site-packages and some is going into /usr/share/gnumed.

Kind regards


Gnumed-devel mailing list

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]