Ben Walton wrote on 24.08.2009 01:44: > Excerpts from Sebastian Kayser's message of Sun Aug 23 18:57:56 -0400 2009: > >> This way, a maintainer who wants to package a python module, just sets >> CATEGORIES = python and has sane defaults, including activation of the >> cswpycompile feature. Furthermore the python maintainer can take care of >> this category.mk file to have it reflect best practices and CSW defaults >> for packaging python modules. >> >> There is a sample build description for ZSI [2] based on these changes. >> Diff of the changes to GAR is attached to this mail. What do you think >> (keeping in mind that the specific functionality of i.cswpycompile >> itself is another sub-topic)? Dago? > > It looks like a reasonable approach to me. The only thing I'd point > out is that in a mixed package (a library that provided python > bindings), it _may_ not be appropriate to set category to python...? > It's like a perfect fit for 95% of the cases though. > > I'm glad you tackled this! I hadn't had a chance to get back to it > yet.
Thanks for the feedback, regarding your concern I made an adjustment. I moved the .pyc,.pyo exclusion logic to gar.mk and it is triggered when PYCOMPILE is set. So now you can just set PYCOMPILE for any non-python category builds and still have all the cswpycompile logic (including .pyc,.pyo exclusion during the merge phase). Full diff for my branch: http://dpaste.com/86757/ Dago, any comments/wishes or can i just merge this to v2? Sebastian _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
