[merge] look for plugins in arch-independent site directory (was Re: Bundling more plugins into bzrtools)
John Arbash Meinel
john at arbash-meinel.com
Mon Mar 3 17:14:16 GMT 2008
John Arbash Meinel has voted comment.
Status is now: Semi-approved
Comment:
So... I believe the original problem was that bzrlib was being installed
to a CPU specific location (/usr/lib64/python/site-packages/bzrlib),
while the plugins should have been arch independent (which I guess is
/usr/lib/python/site-packages/*)
I can't say that I know how fedora solved these issues. But if it has
the python standard library in /usr/lib/python/* how does it know to
import from /usr/lib64/python/*?
With whatever mechanism that was, could we not just import
"bzrlib._compiled_foo" from there, and leave all the rest of the .py
files in /usr/lib/python/* ?
I also don't know if 'python-central' solves any of this. It seems to be
focusing more on keeping track of things based on python version. (So
with 2.4 and 2.5 installed, /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/bzrlib/*.py
are symlinks to the version-agnostic place, which _foo.so and *.pyc are
kept locally.)
Anyway, there are some other effects of this patch that we didn't
discuss. Namely that running from source: "~/dev/bzr/bzr.dev/bzr foo"
will load the plugins installed in
/usr/lib/python/site-packages/bzrlib/plugins/*
I think Robert's argument was that, yes, we *should* have a system-wide
install location (possibly set up in /etc/bazaar.conf), but it should
probably be independent from where bzrlib itself is installed.
I don't feel like I've thought through the implications enough to give a
final vote on this. It feels a little like a workaround for a workaround
that another system chose to use.
For details, see:
http://bundlebuggy.aaronbentley.com/request/%3C47CACCAA.3060700%40ukr.net%3E
More information about the bazaar
mailing list