← Back to team overview

pyroom-team team mailing list archive

Re: Request for review of package branch


Sorry, I forgot I had to click reply to all!

As long as we are following a python convention, it makes sense. The reason
I was asking was because of distribution requirements, its a shame there
isn't a --prefix=/usr/share to allow customisation similar to a makefile.

There is the readme and the website - maybe also the overview page on

In respone to the over email, I will start digging around this compiz issue
then to see if we are missing something.


2008/7/23 Florian Heinle <launchpad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

> On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 11:08:49PM +0000, Adam Rooke wrote:
> > Could you explain why the files are going in site-packages (as per a
> python
> > package) and not in a traditional location for a program such as
> /usr/share?
> > I don't know if this is a convention or not, but looking at my
> site-packages
> > they are mainly python libs whereas other python programs (such as
> emesene)
> > are installed to /usr/share.
> There are indeed conventions/standards for python packages to go to
> site-packages. Setuptools doesn't even allow to install files some place
> else. Other programs sometimes use standard makefiles instead of setuptools
> for installation. Also, most distributions have their own, stricter, file
> system hierarchy standards, which they apply to packages they put into their
> repos.
> > Apart from that, I just tried it and it worked perfectly. It will
> obviosuly
> > make packaging etc a lot easier. I'm all for pushing this into trunk -
> all
> > of the documentation will have to be updated to reflect this change
> though.
> I updated README. Are there any other places with documentation that
> need updating?
> PS: please answer to our mailing list :)
> --
> Florian 'tiax' Heinle
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
> iD8DBQFIhx/goQrteVe/+YQRAo2KAJ0XoTYrlHIQYbdx/tLZtvmFJyIizwCcDJPK
> P9X9rfOoHSgMX8rH0g9uS24=
> =OrIs