Open Stack

On 9/29/17, 6:26 PM, "Jeremy Stanley" <fungi at yuggoth.org> wrote:

    On 2017-09-29 18:39:18 +0200 (+0200), Thomas Bechtold wrote:
> There is /etc [1]
    [...]

>    Not really, no, because the system-context data_files path has to be
>    relative to /usr or /usr/local unless we want to have modules going
>    into /lib and entrypoints in /bin now.

Right – that’s exactly why I this it would be better to stick with a relative path, but make the implementation consistent.

So, given a relative path being used – which is better: etc or share?

To me, etc seems more intuitive given that these are configuration files. Using etc benefits those building and consuming wheels by being an intuitive placement (putting the files into the etc directory of the venv). Each packaging system has their own conventions so I do not think we’re going to be able to come to a common consensus that pleases everyone, so I’d like to rather focus on attaining a consistent path across services so that packagers can adapt their scripts appropriately to cater for their individual quirks, while everyone using wheels gets the benefit of the files being a part of the package.


________________________________
Rackspace Limited is a company registered in England & Wales (company registered number 03897010) whose registered office is at 5 Millington Road, Hyde Park Hayes, Middlesex UB3 4AZ. Rackspace Limited privacy policy can be viewed at www.rackspace.co.uk/legal/privacy-policy - This e-mail message may contain confidential or privileged information intended for the recipient. Any dissemination, distribution or copying of the enclosed material is prohibited. If you receive this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail at abuse at rackspace.com and delete the original message. Your cooperation is appreciated.