On 26 July 2015 at 00:13, William Moreno <williamjmorenor@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[snip]
>
> For me the data under %{python3_sitelib} is arch indepent, Python code that
> is not arch indepent is under %{python3_sitearch} so the arch independent
> argument is not good enough to move these files.
>
You're misunderstanding my point. It's not the fact that it is arch
independent that is significant. This isn't about %{python3_sitelib}
vs. %{python3_sitearch} (both would be the wrong place for static
data). It's the fact that it is *static data* (and arch independent),
and not python library code. The FHS is very clear that static data
which is arch independent should go under /usr/share.
> See: https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_Python#System_Architecture
>
There's nothing in that document germane to the issue as far as i can see.
As it goes, setuptools has ability to specify location of data files, see:
http://peak.telecommunity.com/DevCenter/setuptools#including-data-files
>
>> So, the question is: is it acceptable for this package to install arch
>> independent themes (i.e. non-python code) under
>> /usr/lib/python3/site-packages ?
>>
>
> For me put these files under /usr/lib/python3/site-packages is not a bad
> packaging.
But your reasoning is simply "because other packages do it". I am
afraid I don't feel that is a valid argument.
Jonathan.
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
