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

Toshio Kuratomi a.badger at gmail.com
Sun Jul 26 03:12:41 UTC 2015


On Jul 25, 2015 5:42 PM, "Jonathan Underwood" <jonathan.underwood at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> On 26 July 2015 at 01:07, Jonathan Underwood
> <jonathan.underwood at gmail.com> wrote:
> [snip]
> > As it goes, setuptools has ability to specify location of data files,
see:
> >
> > http://peak.telecommunity.com/DevCenter/setuptools#including-data-files
>
> Discussing this with upstream here:
>
> https://github.com/mkdocs/mkdocs/issues/697
>
> it seems this whole issue is an unfortunate side-effect of mkdocs
> reliance on entry points and that setuptools breaks the distutils
> expectations of where data files are installed. The net result seems
> to be that without re-engineering the whole python packaging stack
> we're stuck with this situation. So, although it pains me greatly to
> see such filesystem abuse, I think I am minded to say that this
> shouldn't block mkdocs approval.

I don't believe I've blocked packages on this either, however it is
relatively simple to comply with the fhs and support the packages' notions
of file placement using symlinks.

There are some cases where I always moved the files and patched the code to
find it on the correct place: documentation, locales, man pages, fonts, and
such.  Those are things that have a specific type and specific place under
the fhs and fedora so it would be wrong to let those specific classes of
file go unmoved wherever upstream puts them.

-Toshio
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/attachments/20150725/6917513d/attachment.html>


More information about the packaging mailing list