Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!dedibox.gegeweb.org!gegeweb.eu!nntpfeed.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!usenet-fr.net!nerim.net!novso.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed4.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
To: python-list@python.org
From: Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: Re: How to find where data files are installed for my Python program
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 00:34:21 +0000
References: <00704f33-7e7f-4ccf-b28b-69776d2e237d@googlegroups.com> <526C7FEF.7020206@islandtraining.com> <CAPTjJmqVz8PidbbjXbSn=6M42m=LZg3JBh1mKQr7-FuiqzbOUQ@mail.gmail.com> <mailman.1637.1382848122.18130.python-list@python.org> <bd3ve5F6cjjU1@mid.individual.net> <CALwzidkXgAkkmE=Z=oxAXppUcKnudSQU9VcdFMRo26PEjmoXjg@mail.gmail.com> <7w7gcy9tpk.fsf@benfinney.id.au> <CAPTjJmp_npLE7xGPXPib16dTqomULRv8xOVuPGizruomnjUX3g@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0.1
In-Reply-To: <CAPTjJmp_npLE7xGPXPib16dTqomULRv8xOVuPGizruomnjUX3g@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: list
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Message-ID: <mailman.1673.1382920476.18130.python-list@python.org>
Lines: 59
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:57777

On 27/10/2013 23:58, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> wrote:
>> It is an unfortunate artefact of Unix history that “binary” has an
>> established connotation of “executable”, encompassing even executable
>> text files.
>
> That's a lot broader than Unix - people talk about "binaries" meaning
> executables in Windows and OS/2 too. Unix is, if anything, _less_
> inclined that way - the executable segment is called "text", which
> always struck me as a bit odd.
>
>> So the separation I'm drawing attention to in the FHS has nothing to do
>> with whether the files are text files, and everything to do with whether
>> they're executable programs and code libraries.
>
> Yup. Unix does a fairly good job of blurring the line between
> "executables that can be loaded and jumped to" and "scripts that get
> loaded by an interpreter". I actually have a few scripts that take
> several levels of interpreter, something like:
>
> foo.pike
> #!/usr/local/bin/pike
>
> bar.pike:
> #!/.../foo.pike --parameter
>
> fum.pike:
> #!/.../bar.pike --otherparameter
>
> Unix will happily execute ./fum.pike as "/usr/local/bin/pike
> /.../foo.pike --parameter /.../bar.pike --otherparameter ./fum.pike".
> There's a limit on the number of interpreters (to prevent loops), but
> I haven't hit it :)
>
> There is one important place, though, where scripts are called data
> files, and that's licensing. The GPL, for instance, does NOT cover
> your scripts, even if it covers the interpreter, because *to the
> language interpreter*, your scripts are just data files. But that's
> more of a legal distinction than a filesystem hierarchical one.
>
> ChrisA
>

Quoting from another thread

"What is the difference between "script" code (like Javascript and 
visual) made for the screen (where such magic values are utilized) and 
compiled source (made for the machine)?"

This obviously impacts on the discussion above, so how does Unix, 
Windows and other operating systems distinguish these with respect to 
binary, executable, code library or whatever?

-- 
Python is the second best programming language in the world.
But the best has yet to be invented.  Christian Tismer

Mark Lawrence