On 02/04/11 21:11, Jakub Bogusz wrote:
It seems that since python 3.2 upstream changed the default way
of creating compiled files: instead of *.pyc/*.pyo in the same
directory that .py file exists, the compiled files are created
in __pycache__ subdirectory.
According to some googled information, the "old method" (files created
in the same directory by compileall) still works in the same way.
In case of the "new method", compiled files are searched in __pycache__
subdirectory only if source file exists.
I'm not sure if the new method affects only (c)python 3.2 installation,
or all modules installed using distutils or so.
So we have to decide how to package python distribution (and possibly
all python3 modules, if distutils use __pycache__ too) - there are
two solutions:
- package all modules in source form together with __pycache__
subdirectories
- stick to "old way" - manually py_comp/py_ocomp all python files,
package *.py[co] without using __pycache__ subdirectories
i always liked the pld way of packaing only .pyc/.pyo for runtime
so my vote goes for keeping the old .py[co] method, and perhaps change
to make is package only .pyc, it is rather ratre somebody invokes python
with -O option so the .pyo is to be needed. or why it was packaged in
first place? to get files owned in case somebody invokes as root and
.pyo gets created? perhaps package .pyc as regular files and .pyo as
ghosted then.
also, python supports bundling the libraries as .zip files too, what
about that approach :)
$ strace -ff -efile python -c "import os" 2>&1|grep .zip
stat64("/usr/lib/python27.zip", 0xbff4e97c) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or
directory)
stat64("/usr/lib/python27.zip", 0xbff4e97c) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or
directory)
as for the .py sources packaging, i'd move them to -debuginfo package so
the could be installed optionally
--
glen
_______________________________________________
pld-devel-en mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
