[issue13400] packaging: build command should have options to control byte-compilation
Changes by Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org: -- dependencies: -Add tests for files byte-compiled by distutils[2] resolution: - out of date stage: - committed/rejected status: open - closed ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue13400 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue13400] packaging: build command should have options to control byte-compilation
Julien Courteau courteaujul...@gmail.com added the comment: It is possible to only change the frontend (options: byte-compile, compile, no-byte-compile, optimize) without changing the backend (attributes: compile and optimize). This way it is then easy to handle both sets of options (no-byte-compile, byte-compile, compile and optimize) for as long as it is necessary. I wonder if that could cause any problem... -- ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue13400 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue13400] packaging: build command should have options to control byte-compilation
Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org added the comment: One thing just came to my mind: if we change option names and people use the new names in setup.cfg or ~/.pydistutils.cfg, then the file will stop being compatible with distutils. -- ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue13400 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue13400] packaging: build command should have options to control byte-compilation
Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org added the comment: FTR I asked Julien to provide his opinion as a user and he agreed that having just one --byte-compile/--no-byte-compile option pair seemed better than the existing names (where --compile and --optimize are unrelated). I wanted to avoid --byte-compile=0 to generate pyc, because I expected people to interpret it as “disabled” instead of “optimization level 0”. Thus the idea of using letters (and avoiding to use c and o as not all VMs have pyc and pyo files). Note that the new spelling for --compile is the seemingly redundant --byte-compile=b, but that does not matter as it will be the default value so people won’t type it. -- ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue13400 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue13400] packaging: build command should have options to control byte-compilation
Julien Courteau courteaujul...@gmail.com added the comment: Here is the last proposition of Eric done at the last Montreal Sprint (May 12): --no-byte-compile- No *.pyc and *.pyo --byte-compile=b - Only *.pyc --byte-compile=b,o - *.pyc and *.pyo (with docstrings) --byte-compile=b,oo - *.pyc and *.pyo (without docstrings) --byte-compile=o - Only *.pyo (with docstrings) --byte-compile=oo- Only *.pyo (without docstrings) --byte-compile=o,oo - Error The parameters are symetric with the -B, -o and -oo of the python command. -- nosy: +Julien.Courteau ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue13400 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue13400] packaging: build command should have options to control byte-compilation
Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org added the comment: I suggest to not use pyc and pyo in options, because .pyc and .pyo filename extensions are specific to a subset of Python implementations. Jython uses $py.class filename extension (module$py.class for module.py). But these are extension modules, not Python modules byte-compiled for caching, are they? You could use --byte-compile, --no-byte-compile and --optimize-bytecode (or --optimize-byte-code) for both build and build_py commands. I like the first two names, but still think that --optimize-bytecode might make people imply that the option is dependent on (or implying) --byte-compile. Maybe it’s just me; I did not read the source for these options closely and was under this misconception for months. OTOH, even with one maybe possibly ambiguous option name, I can still make the help text clearer (i.e. “byte-compile Python modules” and “byte-compile Python modules with optimizations”). (We’re spending a lot of thoughts for a very marginally useful feature (.pyo files).) Do settings from setup.cfg affect byte-compilation? Yes. Like any command options, --(no-)compile and --optimize can be given in config files or on the command-line. BTW, why don’t you want byte-compiled files on your system? -- ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue13400 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue13400] packaging: build command should have options to control byte-compilation
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis arfrever@gmail.com added the comment: Jython's *$py.class files are byte-compiled modules, not extension modules. There should be a way to disable generation of *.pyo files on command line even if setup.cfg enables it. IMHO it would make more sense if --optimize-bytecode was dependant on --byte-compile option: --no-byte-compile - No *.pyc and *.pyo --byte-compile --optimize-bytecode=0 - Only *.pyc --byte-compile --optimize-bytecode=0,1 - *.pyc and *.pyo (with docstrings) --byte-compile --optimize-bytecode=0,2 - *.pyc and *.pyo (without docstrings) --byte-compile --optimize-bytecode=1 - Only *.pyo (with docstrings) --byte-compile --optimize-bytecode=2 - Only *.pyo (without docstrings) --byte-compile --optimize-bytecode=1,2 - Error Byte-compiled files in Gentoo are generated separately, after installation. -- ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue13400 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue13400] packaging: build command should have options to control byte-compilation
Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org added the comment: Jython's *$py.class files are byte-compiled modules, not extension modules. Thanks for the data point. Agreed distutils[2] should not say “pyc” and “pyo” then. There should be a way to disable generation of *.pyo files on command line even if setup.cfg enables it. There is. The precedence of options is: stdlib distutils.cfg (overriden by) user .pydistutils.cfg local setup.cfg options on the command line. Pass --no-compile --optimize=0 to never ever byte-compile (or pass --no-user-cfg and rely on the defaults). IMHO it would make more sense if --optimize-bytecode was dependant on --byte-compile option: It was also my expectation, as I told. The scheme that you propose keeps all current possibilities, it’s nice! What do you think about conflating two options into one? --no-byte-compile - No *.pyc or *.pyo --byte-compile- Only *.pyc --byte-compile=0 - Only *.pyc --byte-compile=0,1- *.pyc and *.pyo (level 1) (etc.) There may be a technical hurdle to overcome (not sure the option parsing system will allow 0 or more arg), but I’m asking for human interface feedback first. (I’m just trying to make the list of options a bit smaller to reduce the overload, but if it feels complicated I won’t do it.) Byte-compiled files in Gentoo are generated separately, after installation. Are you using standard py_compile or compileall modules or your own scripts? I’ve seen that Debian for example has its own scripts and I’m sad to see no feature requests upstreamed to us instead. -- assignee: tarek - eric.araujo ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue13400 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue13400] packaging: build command should have options to control byte-compilation
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis arfrever@gmail.com added the comment: --byte-compile=arguments is a good idea. (Gentoo uses py_compile and compileall modules.) -- ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue13400 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue13400] packaging: build command should have options to control byte-compilation
Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org added the comment: Thanks for all the feedback! So, for anyone interested in contributing, two patches are needed: One that changes the existing options to use the new names and parsing behavior (--no-compile, --compile[=0,1,2]) and adds tests for the erroneous --compile=1,2 (other combinations are already covered). A second one to add --no-compile and --compile to build, make build_py take its default values from build, and add tests to see if this works. As usual, I’m available for help here, on the core-mentorship list or in private email. (I don’t plan to do this myself in the short term because it’s a minor feature, I have an alpha to release and I have to keep the easiest things for new contributors.) -- dependencies: +Add tests for files byte-compiled by distutils[2] ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue13400 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue13400] packaging: build command should have options to control byte-compilation
Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org added the comment: Okay, I think it’s a valuable use case. (Out of curiosity, why don’t you want byte-compiled files on your system? It speeds up imports, and problems due to the presence of stray pyc files when the py is deleted are gone in 3.2+. Maybe you have custom tools to byte-compile, like Debian?) Do you have any opinion about my renaming suggestion? Without renaming, we’d have that: build --byte-compile --no-byte-compile --optimize-bytecode=[012] build_py --compile --no-compile --optimize=[012] If we want to use the same name and make the names clearer, we could have: build(_py) --compile-pyc --no-compile-pyc --compile-pyo=[012] -- title: packaging: build command should accept --compile, --no-compile and --optimize options - packaging: build command should have options to control byte-compilation ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue13400 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue13400] packaging: build command should have options to control byte-compilation
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis arfrever@gmail.com added the comment: I suggest to not use pyc and pyo in options, because .pyc and .pyo filename extensions are specific to a subset of Python implementations. Jython uses $py.class filename extension (module$py.class for module.py). You could use --byte-compile, --no-byte-compile and --optimize-bytecode (or --optimize-byte-code) for both build and build_py commands. Do settings from setup.cfg affect byte-compilation? -- ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue13400 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
