Open Stack

Excerpts from Jesse Pretorius's message of 2017-10-02 08:38:06 +0000:
> 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.
> 

etc implies they should be edited, though, and we're trying to move away
from that at least for the paste.ini files in most projects. So we may
need to decide on a case-by-case basis, unless we declare all of these
files as "sample" files that should be copied into the right place
before being edited.

Doug