Aaron Griffin wrote:
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 6:34 AM, Allan McRae <[email protected]> wrote:
Allan McRae wrote:
Hi all,
A few recent bugs have highlighted issues with how we deal with compiled
versions (.pyo/.pyc) of python (.py) files. We should probably make a
policy on how these should be handled during packaging.
Given I am the python maintainer, I suppose I should be doing this, but I
am wanting to do some more makepkg/pacman stuff so it would be good if
someone else wants to take the lead on this.
Here is a couple of policies from other distros
Debian: http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/python-policy/
Fedora: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python
If someone (not necessarily a dev) wants to help out with this, then it
would be much appreciated.
And given I have already been asked twice what the best way to start this
is, here goes a wiki page to collect ideas on this:
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User:Allan/Python_Packaging_Policy
I wish I had something to help here. Do you have anything in mind as
to how we will actually deal with pyc files on an upgrade (i.e. 2.5 to
2.6) ?
Well, the options I see are
1) .pyc/.pyo files are created as part of packaging. That way we just
rebuild the package if needed during an upgrade.
2) .pyc/.pyo files are recreated on python/package update. So, we would
have a pre_update script that finds all the .pyc/.pyo files, deletes
them and a post_update script that rebuilds them. In this option, it
would be better if .pyc/.pyo files were not part of a package as I don't
like one package touching another packages files.
I'm heavily leaning towards #1 as I don't like having files on my root
partition that are not controlled by pacman. However, that can lead to
a lot of conflicts during upgrades in the short term...
I haven't thought about this any further than that at the moment.
Allan
