Option to specify 'bin-directory' analog to 'contents-directory'

[adkrprog]

Hi

The possibility to specify --contents-directory is a very nice thing to have multiple software in parallel. Could you implement the same concept for the binary part (--bin-directory)?
The use case is to use GNU stow for versioning binary files and not to have contents-directory in the search path.

actual:

|---myapp
|---contents-directory
      |---some libs

new:

|---bin-directory
      |---myapp
|---contents-directory
      |---some libs

I would very appreciate this extension to pyinstaller.

Thanks, Adi

[rokm]

actual:
|---myapp
|---contents-directory
|---some libs

It's actually just

actual:
|---myapp
|---contents-directory

because everything goes into contents-directory (or not, if you set it to '.' to have the old onedir layout).

new:
|---bin-directory
|---myapp
|---contents-directory
|---some libs

I'm not sure what you want to put into bin-directory? Most python packages assume the layout where binaries (package-bundled shared libs, extensions, even package-bundled binaries) are located next to package data (and source .py files, if they need to be collected). So even if we were to go about splitting those apart (like we have to for example in macOS .app bundles), we'd need to symlink them back together for things to work. So I don't think this would help with "not having contents-directory in the search path".

[adkrprog]

That would allow me to implement a clean UNIX like setup. I plan to setup a ci/cd pipeline to build the software and distribute it over NFS to the clients. Therefore the workaround is not an option.
If I can help, please let me know.
Many thanks, Adi

[bwoodsend]

When we implemented --contents-directory, we really really didn't want it to escalate into anything that would require more permutative testing. Even --contents-directory=. was a very reluctant concession just to stop people from whinging at us.

[bwoodsend]

I still don't see how a bin directory solves your problem.

[adkrprog]

I plan do deploy a large number of applications. All packages are then linked with gnu stow with the bin directory added to the $PATH. Having all ‚lib‘ stuff in the $PATH creates unnecessary overhad. Therefore I would like to have that separated, like unix does.

[rokm]

Why can't you just link /my/custom/location/program1/program1 to /usr/local/bin/program1 and be done with it? Does stow mandate this bin/lib separation (i.e., you point it to directory and with current layout it links both program1 and its _internal directory)? If so, you could also just create a bin directory that contains symlink to ../program1 and point stow to that? (EDIT: hmm, or actually not, if you need to point it at /my/custom/location/program1 directory - in that case it would end up linking bin, _internal, and program1)