Re: Using Py_SetPythonHome

[Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>]

> Show me any common GNU/Linux distro [...]

There lies the problem. You are being focused on distros, whereas I am
saying that we should cater to the needs of people who do not provide
a distribution, but just a binary package. This is why we disagree
so strongly. You need to understand that there are uses of Free
Software other than distribution-provided binaries.

It may be a lot less common today, compared to 15 years ago, but to
this day, I still build a lot of software from sources, and I move it
around from time to time.

Example: For GDB development, I build specific versions of the auto
tools, as well as flex, etc. I install them at a specific location
to start somewhere in my home directory. But then, the sysadmin asked
me to move it elsewhere because it takes too much room. Should I have
to recompile everything just because the world is now distro-centric?

Should every company out there that provides binary packages deal
with the problem on their own rather than share the feature just because
it isn't a necessary feature in distro-style binaries?

Yes, it would be great if glibc dealt with it automatically for us.
But what about Solaris, HP-UX, IRIX, Windows? Right now, there is
no standard cross-platform way to deal with the problem. So each
project is on its own. Not ideal, but still a fact that we have to
deal with.

> > Going back to the actual subject of this discussion, would it cause
> > a problem to call Py_SetPythonHome in your situation where everything
> > is static and installed at the default location?
> 
> Yes, it is a problem because 99.9% of other Python-using packages behave
> differently.

With this reasoning, would people ever inovate?

-- 
Joel