-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.3k
[Needs review] Fix python site-packages dir #3916
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
NTULINUX
wants to merge
1
commit into
LinuxCNC:master
Choose a base branch
from
NTULINUX:fix-site-packages
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+14
−10
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
On Fedora 43, this returns:
/usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages.The other instances, in install_script and setup_designer.in, using
import site; print([p for p in site.getsitepackages() if p.startswith('/usr/lib') and '/lib64/' not in p][0])returns:/usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages.lib/lib64 difference... very strange.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
As ugly as it may be, I can copy the logic from
m4and put it in install_script and setup_designer.inI was just trying to avoid that..
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Nevermind, you're talking about the old one, not PYTHON_SITE_PKG. I misunderstood. Currently, on fedora with my latest forced push, PYTHON_SITE_PKG and SITEPY in those files match.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
When I look in those two directories, then both are populated, but with different packages. I have no clue what goes into where. Maybe fedora docs can help?
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah I noticed that too, I figured since PYTHON_SITE_PKG uses /lib instead of /lib64 to use that, plus /lib is more heavily populated.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There must be some documentation which distro wants what where. Better do it right than guess wrong?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
/usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/: This directory is used for architecture-specific (binary) packages.
/usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/: This directory is used for architecture-independent (pure Python) packages. These "noarch" packages consist only of .py files and byte-compiled .pyc files, which are not tied to a specific hardware architecture.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
And that applies to Debian, Ubuntu, Gentoo and other distros too?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Debian uses /usr/lib/python3/dist-packages for everything
Gentoo uses /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages for everything
Fedora... :P