RE: Using Py_SetPythonHome

["Terekhov, Mikhail" <mikhail.terekhov@emc.com>]

Hi Jan,

You are living on another planet for sure.

Regards,
Mikhail

P.S. The same note about "grain of salt" applies.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gdb-owner@sourceware.org [mailto:gdb-owner@sourceware.org] On
> Behalf Of Jan Kratochvil
> Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 1:54 PM
> To: Joel Brobecker
> Cc: Doug Evans; Meador Inge; gdb@sourceware.org
> Subject: Re: Using Py_SetPythonHome
> 
> 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