Georg Schwarz <georg.schwarz%freenet.de@localhost> writes: >> Am 08.12.2020 um 14:59 schrieb Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost>: >> >> share is only ok if they are independent of CPU architecture. > > the Python scripts are not architecture-dependent. I'm wondering > though whether applying REPLACE_PYTHON on them might make them so, > since the python binary's location/version might be different on > different architectures. > What do you think? The notion of share is for the same operating system but different CPU types. With the same pkgsrc sources, configured/bootstrapped the same way, python will be in the same place. But this is all academic; pkgsrc expects to be built for each system/cpu type, and while in theory one could NFS-mount (or similar) the share sub-part on a system with identical packages, I am not aware of anyone trying to do it, and I would advise them not to -- because that means pkgdb and installed files aren't in sync like you'd expect. What I meant originally is that while .py is text, python tends to make .pyc which is some byte-compiled version. It appears that .pyc is architecture-independent, so it isn't banned from share. (Note that it is python version specific, but that's ok.) But, the real point is to start with upstremm's install insstructions, and then if you think they are broken, file a bug with them about that.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature