On Sat, Sep 02, 2006 at 12:13:41PM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Sat, 2006-09-02 at 18:04 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
>
> I agree with the above, but that was not what you were saying. I won't
> bother copying your quote back again, you seem to have a reason why
> you're trimming it ;)
Please. Tell me what is wrong with:
> Due to the way that python works, if any part of a python's module is
> arch specific (sitearch), the entire thing has to go into sitearch.
> Python will not import part from sitearch and part from sitelib. So
> it'd all have to go in sitearch.
Maybe my English isn't clear enough to you? "any part of a python's
module", so we're talking about a single module here right? "is arch
specific", pretty clear. "the entire thing", thing being the module.
"has to go into sitearch", correct, has to go into the arch specific
dir. Be that /usr/lib in i386 or /usr/lib64 on x86_64. Please, tell me
where I'm failing English here, as it is my native language and I'd
really like to know.
Add the OP's quote that is missing above and you'll see what you were
meaning with "part of a python's module". I replied to the original
post of yours, where all the context is present and I think it's quite
clear.
E.g. your answer only makes sense if the packager was implying to tear
foo.py apart into an arch-dependent and arch-independent part, which
is certainly not what he wanted to do.
--
Axel.Thimm at
ATrpms.net