On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 20:55:25 -0600
Shawn Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
> Nicolas Williams wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 02:30:21PM -0600, Shawn Walker wrote:
> >> Or we could just "keep it simple" and deliver the pyc files as we are
> >> now. All of these solutions sound technically neat, and at the same
> >> time overly complicated.
> >
> > My understanding was that two different versions of Python trying to
> > import the same .py's will want to create competing .pyc's. That is a
> > problem. And so is the fact that /usr is generally not writable by
> > users. And then you need to get third parties to follow your lead.
> Considering we deliver our python modules to separate paths for each
> version, I didn't consider that a problem that needed solving.
Are you going to be the only group providing python modules, or in
some way do something to insure the quality of package so that you can
make sure that all python files are either 1) modules with a
version-specific path or 2) a script?
Oh, and someone ought to check to see if a minor version upgrade
(i.e. - 2.4.2 to 2.4.5) might cause modules to be recompiled. Such
versions share libraries, and hence paths.
> >> I'd rather just deal with the timestamp in the pyc files and be done
> >> with it.
> > Are you sure that won't cause other problems?
> Is the cure worse than the disease? Not as far as I know...
It'd be nice if you delivered .pyo files as well.
<mike
--
Mike Meyer <[email protected]> http://www.mired.org/consulting.html
Independent Network/Unix/Perforce consultant, email for more information.
O< ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
