From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18069 invoked by alias); 3 Oct 2012 17:54:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 18053 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Oct 2012 17:54:00 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_SPAMHAUS_DROP,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,TBC X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 03 Oct 2012 17:53:52 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q93HrmUe003551 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 3 Oct 2012 13:53:48 -0400 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-83.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.83]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q93Hrh70005191 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 3 Oct 2012 13:53:46 -0400 Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2012 17:54:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Doug Evans , Meador Inge , gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Using Py_SetPythonHome Message-ID: <20121003175343.GA14317@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <20120917174611.GA27891@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20120919080410.GA12296@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20120921153645.GD5439@adacore.com> <20120921154345.GA30615@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20120921155758.GE5439@adacore.com> <20120921172735.GA4341@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20121002130854.GL30746@adacore.com> <20121003151244.GA22734@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20121003153854.GC13994@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20121003153854.GC13994@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-10/txt/msg00024.txt.bz2 Hi Joel, please take this mail "with a grain of salt", although only a bit. On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 17:38:54 +0200, Joel Brobecker wrote: > that we should cater to the needs of people who do not provide > a distribution, but just a binary package. There are not any such people. > You need to understand that there are uses of Free > Software other than distribution-provided binaries. It is already a history. > I still build a lot of software from sources, Binaries outside of package management no longer exists and they should be deleted ASAP if found as it is both a security hole and a too expensive software management issue. > to start somewhere in my home directory. But then, the sysadmin asked > me to move it elsewhere because it takes too much room. There do not exist any multi-user systems anymore. Each developer has her own virtual machine (in fact many of them), therefore sure with root access and with proper normal automatic package management there. > Should I have > to recompile everything just because the world is now distro-centric? Nobody is compiling software, this is happenning automatically in build farms. > Should every company out there that provides binary packages deal > with the problem on their own rather than share the feature just because > it isn't a necessary feature in distro-style binaries? There is no problem, all files and their locations are under the control of package management of each GNU/Linux distro. > Yes, it would be great if glibc dealt with it automatically for us. > But what about Solaris, HP-UX, IRIX, Windows? Right now, there is > no standard cross-platform way to deal with the problem. So each > project is on its own. Not ideal, but still a fact that we have to > deal with. Please withstand those few remaining years on those proprietary systems and do not try to reinvent GNU/Linux package management on top of them, that has been tried already uncountable times and it does not work. These proprietary systems are doomed, their missing package management is a part of this fate. > > > Going back to the actual subject of this discussion, would it cause > > > a problem to call Py_SetPythonHome in your situation where everything > > > is static and installed at the default location? > > > > Yes, it is a problem because 99.9% of other Python-using packages behave > > differently. > > With this reasoning, would people ever inovate? That is a great idea. Packaging rules changes get proposed and discussed first at: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_Committee Or sure an appropriate body in some other major GNU/Linux distro featuring qualified people who can contribute to your idea. Thanks, Jan