[Slackbuilds-users] [FYI]SlackBuild for python modules should be architecture dependent
chaos.proton at gmail.com
Thu May 28 23:10:57 UTC 2009
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 02:36, Eric Hameleers <alien at slackbuilds.org> wrote:
> Hi Grissiom
> If you write a SlackBuild that installs purepython files which are
> architecture independent you will indeed still have a "lib vs lib64"
> difference in the final package depending on the architecture you
> create the package on.
> But since we are SlackBuilds.org and not LinuxPackages.net we do not
> have to worry about where the final package gets built and installed -
> the person who compiles it will know.
Hmm, Ok, so I know the role of SlackBuilds.org -- distribute the build
script but not the packages and there is no guarantee that the packages
build from the scripts are re-distributable?
> So, the purepython package can be "noarch" as long as you determine
> the install-lib using Python itself:
> PYTHONLIB=$( python -c "from distutils.sysconfig import
> get_python_lib; print get_python_lib()" )
> This will yield "/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages" on Slackware 12.2
> and "/usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages" on slackware64-current. You
> see that the python version number no longer needs to be hardcoded.
> Use that variable as follows:
> python setup.py install \
> --prefix=/usr \
> --install-lib=$PYTHONLIB \
The setup.py will take care of this automaticially. Maybe there is no need
to bother --install-lib if you do not want to re-distribute the package.
You will not have to add the "if ARCH ... fi" block and the
> LIBDIRSUFFIX is not used at all. A single SlackBuild will work on all
> Slackware releases.
Yes, SlackBuilds will always work. So the problem now is the package build
from a SlackBuild is re-distributable or not or, do we want it to be
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the SlackBuilds-users