Python module packaged in very non-standard way
Affects | Status | Importance | Assigned to | Milestone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
ecryptfs-utils (Ubuntu) |
Fix Released
|
High
|
Unassigned |
Bug Description
Here's the policy document for Python modules:
http://
The ecryptfs module is strange in many ways:
* It is not in a package named python-*
* It does not use *any* of the available Python packaging helpers (the one to use nowadays would be dh_python2)
* While the .pyc file is removed from the package, the .pyo file is not, and furthermore because the package isn't using any of the helpers it doesn't arrange for the module to be byte-compiled on installation or when the default Python version is changed
* It is only built for the current Python version, rather than for all supported Python versions
* The module is installed to /usr/lib/
I noticed this because I'm working on removing .pyc files from the live filesystem and recreating them at installation time, and this package showed up as a discrepancy because it was a rare case where the .pyc file was missing from the live filesystem but reappeared after my installer modifications. I'm not going to let this block my work, but it clearly ought to be fixed.
The last issue in particular makes me wonder whether anyone is actually using this module. Do you know? Perhaps it would be acceptable to move it to a python-ecryptfs package without requiring any particular transition mechanism?
Incidentally, I would be happy to provide a patch to fix most of these issues, but I'd need guidance on what you want to do about the package naming (move to python-libecryptfs without a transition?) and the anomalous ecryptfs- utils/libecrypt fs.py installation location (what should people have to type after 'import'?).