Attn: Install path debaters
ianbruene at gmail.com
Thu Jan 4 20:52:20 UTC 2018
On 01/04/2018 01:21 PM, Gary E. Miller via devel wrote:
>> What are these other issues?
> The FHS, Gentoo, and AFAIK all distros, do not include /usr/local/XX
> in any enviroment PATHs.
Ubuntu does. Did people just not usually use /usr/local/ much in the
Eldar Days? That would explain it not being part of FHS but distros
moving towards including it.
> So, when I install NTPsec in /usr/local, I need to be sure I
> have added /usr/local/XX to at least:
> OTher things installed in /usr/local may also require adding /usr/local
> And there are more not wide used.
> 'Fixing' just PYTHONPATH, and ignoring the others is touching only
> part of the problem.
Ooookaaayyy..... That is a much bigger problem. If what you are
describing is true how is the build working /at all/ on non-Debian systems?
> If anything is going into /usr by default, that is new, and very, very
> bad. That conflicts with FHS and the policy of every distro I know of.
Not by default, but if the provided paths don't show up in sys.path it
does. And this is not a new problem, you came across it some time ago,
but no fix has been decided on as of yet.
> Yes, and also the binaries, man pages, and other things. This is
> by design, dating back to UNIX tradition in the 1970's, still embedded
> firmly in the FHS, etc.
Why then did the documentation only talk about adding to PYTHONPATH?
>> bad: apparently breaks inter-version seals between different
>> copies of NTP. But this is true of any distro with /usr/local/
>> good: it doesn't bypass python versioning <--- This is a Huge
> Uh, no. Until the user sets his PATH, MANPATH, INFOPATH, PYTHONPATH, etc.
> the traditional way does NOT break the NPT in /usr.
Not a particularly relevant detail; if it is used to breaks the seal.
One might also say that if it isn't built it won't have bugs.
>> neutral: I'll bet that this doesn't solve the specific variant
>> of the problem that I've encountered (a weird variant)
> You only have a problem because you have not properly configured your
> many PATH variables yet.
>> IMHO if we end up defaulting to the old method we should suggest the
>> user create a .pth file instead of PYTHONPATH.
> I suggest we give him both options. .pth file is not an option for
>> PYTHONPATH is a mess for this kind of thing.
> Really??? So PATH, MANPATH, INFOPATH, LD_CONFIG_PATH, etc. are somehow
> easy for you, but PYTHONPATH is not easy???? This is ONE LINE in ONE
Ok, now I have to describe the bug I encountered (yes, already filled a
report upstream). On my system any version of python 3 gives a
/usr/local/ install path for version "python3". But it only adds paths
for "python3.<n>" under /usr/local/.
This is what I mean when I say that PYTHONPATH is a mess for this kind
of thing. You can't tell it to add a path for certain versions of python
only. You can tell it to use a specific path, or you can tell it to use
a path with the standard subdirectories which the sys.path builder
script will then add.
/"In the end; what separates a Man, from a Slave? Money? Power? No. A
Man Chooses, a Slave Obeys."/ -- Andrew Ryan
/"Utopia cannot precede the Utopian. It will exist the moment we are fit
to occupy it."/ -- Sophia Lamb
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the devel