Brad Chapman wrote: > > This is definately not a replacement for autoconf/automake, so this > would just be used to manage installation of the python parts of the > program. So I guess the idea is that Piper, as it stands right now, > will be distributed in two "sections": > > 1. the pyGTK UI and the dl -> Distutils installation Build-Time System (BTS) BTW, what about non-Python UI's? > 2. the BL and PL (GMS and Overflow) -> autoconf/automake installation and Run-Time System (RTS) > > It would be nice if the user could just type "install". > > Well, Distutils is close. To install everything you need to type: > > python setup.py install > > How's that? :-) Pretty simple :-) > It should be easy enough to > tie the python Distutils build with the configure builds for the bl > and pl, if we want the user to be able to type one command and get > everything installed. > To do this, we just need to call './configure && make && make > install' after the Distutils finishes installing the python parts of > the program, and this is really easy to do. Yeah, I would like to see a single-command install process. > I'll get the new directory structure installing with > Distutils, so everyone can look at how that works first hand. Okay, then you're talking about just the Python stuff (UIL and DL), because Distutils doesn't handle C/C++. Right? > It is > really smoov, so I'm sure everyone will dig it. Then once we get stuff > hashed out, we can work on fixing cvs (maybe we should just import the > new structure as a new module--> piper. Yes, it'd be MUCH easier to re-import everything. (Getting rid of "library" will also break a lot of things :-( ) > Thinking about it more, I'd like to completely get rid of both 'main' > and 'back'. So what would be left is the following type of structure. > > piper > ui -> What is currently in 'front' Could we use "uil" instead of "ui"? Just semantics here, but we're really talking about a "layer". The UIL is a layer comprised of multiple UI's, and more than one UI will go in the "uil" directory. > dl -> what is currently in 'middle' > piper_config.py -> What is currently in const.py. The piper > configuration > file. > piper -> The main executable. > > So then during the install, we will install the piper directory with > all of the libraries that make things work inside of the > 'site-packages' directory, and install the piper executable in > <prefix>/bin (where <prefix> is specified as a flag during the install > (just with with autoconf)). Hold on a sec. My understanding is that the "site-packages" directory is used for Python development modules/libraries and not for applications. Have you heard or seen otherwise? Are we considering most of Pied and the DL to be development libraries like PyGTK? Don't we need a home directory for Piper anyway? I was thinking of putting the Python code in something like /home/piper, and then a symlink can go in /usr/bin. > Now that we are installing things, we will also not be able to > save temporary and permanent xml files "inside of" the directory > structure (since otherwise the user will have to run stuff as root to > write things inside the directory structure, which is not a good > thing). I'd like to suggest that we store all xml for piper inside > $HOME/piper, where $HOME is the environmental variable specifying the > home of the user running piper. How does this sound to people? Definitely, each user needs to keep his/her own stuff in his/her own space. Most Unix apps work that way. Cheers. Jeff -- +----------------------------------+ | J.W. Bizzaro | | | | http://bioinformatics.org/~jeff/ | | | | BIOINFORMATICS.ORG | | The Open Lab | | | | http://bioinformatics.org/ | +----------------------------------+