ports/182332: python packages install packed eggs which makes them unusable for running services

[Volodymyr Kostyrko]

23.10.2013 07:23, Kubilay Kocak wrote:
> Hi Volodymyr,
>
> While it is a desirable (and planned) long-terms goal to have consistent
> behaviour in the ports tree, there is not *yet* a formal or specific
> documented policy regarding Python module packaging in FreeBSD.

And that's bad.

> A number of maintainers *do* however, make changes to upstream modules
> by explicitly setting zip_safe=False in setup.py, or overriding the use
> of setuptools with plain-old distutils, resulting in the module being
> installed uncompressed.

Or like me overriding the way egg is installed to uncompress it.

> For those modules or ports that *dont* currently do this such as
> www/trac, the end-user *can* use the PYTHON_EGG_CACHE environment
> variable that points to a writable area of the filesystem to address the
> behaviour.

While this is possibly true for www/trac this can be not so funny for 
some other modules that are actually used in restricted env or even 
chroot without possibility to write anything anywhere. Using compressed 
eggs in such environments is a bit painful...

> In short, I recommend that this PR be changed, assigning it to the
> maintainer of the www/trac port for follow-up and resolution.

Actually I started this pr because I want some Python module package 
policy to emerge and possibly to explicitly specify one recommended way 
of dealing with such packages. As you wrote many port maintainers 
specifically override the order of things in different inconsistent ways 
and even this makes packages more useful having a lot of different 
patches and crotches throughout the ports tree is definitely not a good 
thing.

-- 
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.