On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:12 PM, Daniel Isenmann <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:10:24 -0500 > Aaron Griffin <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Daniel Isenmann >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:02:15 -0400 >> > Eric Bélanger <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Aaron Griffin >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Eric Bélanger >> >> > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Aaron Griffin >> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Daniel Isenmann >> >> >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>>> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:08:33 -0500 >> >> >>>> Aaron Griffin <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Daniel Isenmann >> >> >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>>>> > On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:45:20 -0400 >> >> >>>>> > Eric Bélanger <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >>>>> >> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Travis Willard >> >> >>>>> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>>>> >> >> As I can see now, these are .pyo files. Are they >> >> >>>>> >> >> generate at runtime or something like that? They are >> >> >>>>> >> >> not in the package. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >> > >> >> >>>>> >> > .pyo files are, I believe, "optimized" python files >> >> >>>>> >> > generated during runtime. >> >> >>>>> >> > >> >> >>>>> >> >> >> >>>>> >> I beleiie so too. I think there was a thread about how to >> >> >>>>> >> deal with these files. I think the info is in a wiki >> >> >>>>> >> article about python packaging guidelines. The other >> >> >>>>> >> remaining file is wicd.log wich is generated at runtime >> >> >>>>> >> too. >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >>>>> > I have nothing found about those files. The article about >> >> >>>>> > python package guidelines is very short. Nothing special >> >> >>>>> > about it. >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >>>>> > The log file is acceptable, but the pyo files are annyoing. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> I imagine that this only happens with apps run as root (or >> >> >>>>> have write permissions to their install dir). >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> I think the best thing, for the time being, is to do this in >> >> >>>>> a pre_remove (so you have access to pacman -Ql at that time) >> >> >>>>> and do something like: >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> PKGNAME=wicd >> >> >>>>> pre_remove () { >> >> >>>>> for pyo in $(pacman -Qql $PKGNAME | grep \.py$ | sed >> >> >>>>> 's|.py$|.pyo|g'); do if [ -f "$pyo" ]; then >> >> >>>>> rm "$pyo" >> >> >>>>> fi >> >> >>>>> done >> >> >>>>> } >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Ok, I will do it this way, but shouldn't we have a better >> >> >>>> solution for this for the future? >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Well, the only sane way to do it would be to make sure pacman >> >> >>> tracks the .pyo files by generating them as part of the package >> >> >>> creation process, but I don't even know if that's possible >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> it's possible. Just create empty files with the same name with >> >> >> 'touch' in the build function. >> >> > >> >> > Looks like python -O py_compile.py foo.py will do this. And it >> >> > looks like setuptools has an --optimize argument. I'd suggest >> >> > trying this >> >> > >> >> > python setup.py install --optimize=1 ...other args... >> >> > >> >> >> >> yeah, just found that here: >> >> http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User:Allan/Python_Packaging_Policy >> > >> > Why wasn't that added to the "official" Python Packaging Policy >> > here: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Python_Package_Guidelines >> > >> > I will change that in the next package version of wicd. I just >> > committed the other "fix", don't want to release the next package >> > right now. Have to remember that page. >> >> Added it :) > > The only problem is, that architecture 'any' doesn't work anymore with > this install option. But I think that this problem doesn't affect so > much packages to worry about, I think.
Are you saying that the .pyo files are no longer architecture independent? I was under the assumption they were.
