On 3/13/2012 9:57 PM, VanL wrote: > On Mar 13, 2012, at 8:37 PM, "Martin v. Löwis"<martin at v.loewis.de> > wrote: > >>> 1) The layout for the python root directory for all platforms >>> should be as follows: >>> >>> stdlib = {base/userbase}/lib/python{py_version_short} platstdlib >>> = {base/userbase}/lib/python{py_version_short} purelib = >>> {base/userbase}/lib/python{py_version_short}/site-packages >>> platlib = >>> {base/userbase}/lib/python{py_version_short}/site-packages >>> include = {base/userbase}/include/python{py_version_short} >>> scripts = {base/userbase}/bin data = {base/userbase} >> [...] >>> I have talked with a number of people at PyCon, including Tarek >>> and MvL. Nobody objected, and several thought it was a good >>> idea. >> >> I admit that I didn't understand that lib/python{version} was also >> part of the proposal. I'm fine with the bin/ change, but skeptical >> about the lib change - this just adds a redundant level of >> directories on Windows. The installation will end up in >> >> c:\python33\lib\python3.3 >> >> which has the software name and version twice in the path. >> >> Do we *really* need this? > > > We *already* have this. The only difference in this proposal is that > we go from py_version_nodot to py_version_short, i.e. from > > c:\python33\lib\python33 Right not, we (at least I) have .../python33/Lib/<library files> .../python32/Lib/<library files> > to > > c:\python33\lib\python3.3 > > Given that we already repeat it, isn't it better to be consistent? But there is no repetition currently on Windows installations. I though you were just proposing to switch lib (lower-cased, and scripts renamed as bin, and pythonxx). So I do not think I yet understand what the proposal is and how it would be different from what I have now. -- > Terry Jan Reedy
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4