Packaging .py files

[Mariusz Mazur]

Dnia czwartek, 17 lipca 2008, Tomasz Pala napisał:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 23:07:38 +0200, Mariusz Mazur wrote:
> > Over the years I've grown quite tired of a lot of cases where PLD tries
> > to be
>
> I'm tired too but it is a must have for reliable system.

It's not a reliable system when any application can fail because it either 
expects something that all of the other distros, except us, have (sh -> bash) 
or we've done something to it without having much clue about original 
developers' reasons for a particular choice (ripping out internal versions of 
various libs).

> > smarter then upstream and/or other distros and does something completely
> > insignificant differently which results in having to patch up perfectly
> > working apps.
>
> These 'perfectly working apps' used to be security holes, functionality
> breakers etc.

If they in fact are, to the extent we're not as much of security zealots as, 
say, openbsd, it's obviously better to patch them.

Both the python and /bin/sh cases don't fall under any of the above. Let's try 
to be specific.

> > On the one hand I've got a lot of stuff to make my life easier
> > (hey, vserver out of the box!) and on the other there are those little
> > pesky oddities.
>
> If you don't value being The Right Way just use some FC, Debian, Ubuntu
> or other.

PLD also has The Right Way, the Have It Just Work rule. Non-interactive rpm 
installations, sane and working out-of-the-box default configs, a lot 
of %post scripts to make sure everything's integrated, etc, etc. Going 
against de facto standards (/bin/sh) and actual standards (python -- I'm 
quite sure it's authors never meant for it to be distributed the way we do) 
both break the rule.

> > (Others would be e.g. /bin/sh)
>
> Yeah, let's use fucked up bash. The next step would be to use FC spec
> files and simple package - * instead of file listings in subpackages.
> The end of this road is even much simplier - ./configure; make; make
> install.

The only part where we actually prefer not to have bash is where our own (made 
in-house) scripts are concerned. All other scripts should be run with what 
their authors expected, and that's bash (the Have It Just Work rule). The 
solution is quite trivial -- have our scripts invoke pdksh directly and leave 
bash under /bin/sh.



Bottom line is -- we're quite an invasive distro anyway, as far as patching 
apps goes, so it's in our best interest to get rid of those modifications 
that have no real life value and are only a pain in the ass.

I'd urge the Th RM (well, Ti too ;) to Do The Right Thing wrt to both python 
and sh/bash. If it's really an unpopular decision, it'll get overruled in 
CDG. And if not, we'll have a few less quirks to irritate us.


-- 
Judge others by their intentions and yourself by your results.
                                                                 Guy Kawasaki
Education is an admirable thing, but it is well to remember from
time to time that nothing that is worth knowing can be taught.
                                                                  Oscar Wilde