On Sat, Sep 02, 2006 at 12:13:41PM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Sat, 2006-09-02 at 18:04 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > > > > I agree with the above, but that was not what you were saying. I won't > > bother copying your quote back again, you seem to have a reason why > > you're trimming it ;) > > Please. Tell me what is wrong with: > > > Due to the way that python works, if any part of a python's module is > > arch specific (sitearch), the entire thing has to go into sitearch. > > Python will not import part from sitearch and part from sitelib. So > > it'd all have to go in sitearch. > > Maybe my English isn't clear enough to you? "any part of a python's > module", so we're talking about a single module here right? "is arch > specific", pretty clear. "the entire thing", thing being the module. > "has to go into sitearch", correct, has to go into the arch specific > dir. Be that /usr/lib in i386 or /usr/lib64 on x86_64. Please, tell me > where I'm failing English here, as it is my native language and I'd > really like to know. Add the OP's quote that is missing above and you'll see what you were meaning with "part of a python's module". I replied to the original post of yours, where all the context is present and I think it's quite clear. E.g. your answer only makes sense if the packager was implying to tear foo.py apart into an arch-dependent and arch-independent part, which is certainly not what he wanted to do. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpg0jsqWsqVv.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
