[Fedora-packaging] Re: python: mixing sitearch and sitelib (was: python noarch vs arch)

Axel Thimm Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Sat Sep 2 16:18:44 UTC 2006

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

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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20060902/81d815d1/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list