Message409677
| Author |
hroncok |
| Recipients |
FFY00, christian.heimes, frenzy, hroncok, jakirkham, jaraco, lemburg, petr.viktorin, steve.dower, xrcg |
| Date |
2022年01月04日.13:50:11 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1641304211.41.0.56737572323.issue43976@roundup.psfhosted.org> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
In Fedora 36+ / Python 3.10+ we now use an install_scheme that looks like this:
'purelib': '{base}/local/lib/python{py_version_short}/site-packages',
'platlib': '{platbase}/local/{platlibdir}/python{py_version_short}/site-packages',
'scripts': '{base}/local/bin',
'data': '{base}/local',
...
We got a user report [1] saying that `pip install --root ... --prefix /usr` the prefix is not respected at all.
That is, users expect that /usr/local is the prefix, and when they explicitly set it to /usr, the /local/ bit will not be there, while in reality, /local/ is not a part of the prefix, but it is a part of the installation scheme.
I can somehow relate to that assumption.
Now I wonder whether we should have adapted prefix instead of the installation scheme :/
Any ideas on how to approach this problem? I am quite clueless.
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2026979 |
|