[Fedora-packaging] Second opinion needed on location of static arch independent data

William Moreno williamjmorenor at gmail.com
Sat Jul 25 23:13:08 UTC 2015

I am the packager of mkdocs.

During the review of mkdocs[1], which is a python package for
> generating static webpages, I (as reviewer) noticed that it installs a
> lot of themes (javascript, fonts and the like) under
> /usr/lib/python3/site-packages/mkdocs/themes.
python-sphinx Ipython python-werkzeug and python-django also put .js files
under %{python2_sitelib} or %{python3_sitelib} and this only a simple find
in my system, so it is safe to think than many python packages put arch
indepent data under %{python2_sitelib} and %{python3_sitelib} ,
removing  bundled
fonts and replaced with symlinks.

So all those packages must be fixed or mkdocs can put this data under

> My feeling is that this static architecture independent data should
> really be installed under /usr/share/mkdocs to comply with the FHS[2].
> But the packager (quite reasonably) points out that other packages
> such as sphinx install templates and themes under
> /usr/lib/python3/site-packages.
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.

See: https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_Python#System_Architecture

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/attachments/20150725/baf9b291/attachment.html>

More information about the packaging mailing list