pyx files?

[Ray Van Dolson]

I'm updating one of my packages (pymssql) which has moved to using
Cython.  As such, it includes .pyx files.

By default, the setup tools place these .pyx files in %{_usr}.  As we
typically wouldn't include the generated .c files, I'm not sure we need
to package .pyx files, though I do see a few packages out there which
contain some.

Anyone have any thoughts?  Should my upstream configure their setup.py
to put these .pyx files elsewhere?  I'm not familiar enough with Cython
to have a feel for how this typicaly works.

Thanks,
Ray

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 10:22:22AM -0700, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
>  I'm updating one of my packages (pymssql) which has moved to
> using
>  Cython.  As such, it includes .pyx files.
>  
>  By default, the setup tools place these .pyx files in %{_usr}.  As we
>  typically wouldn't include the generated .c files, I'm not sure we need
>  to package .pyx files, though I do see a few packages out there which
>  contain some.
>  
>  Anyone have any thoughts?  Should my upstream configure their setup.py
>  to put these .pyx files elsewhere?  I'm not familiar enough with Cython
>  to have a feel for how this typicaly works.
>   
* Note: I haven't touched cython and I last used Pyrex in Fedora 4 or so.

I think that .pyx files should not be included since they're first compiled
to C and then compiled to object code.  They don't do any definite harm to
be included but they don't serve any purpose.  If we found .c or .cpp files
on the filesystem after make install we'd probably rm them for cleanliness
and I think these belong in the same category.

-Toshio

[Tom Callaway]

On 07/09/2010 04:40 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>  On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 10:22:22AM -0700, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> > I'm updating one of my packages (pymssql) which has moved to using
> > Cython.  As such, it includes .pyx files.
> >
> > By default, the setup tools place these .pyx files in %{_usr}.  As we
> > typically wouldn't include the generated .c files, I'm not sure we need
> > to package .pyx files, though I do see a few packages out there which
> > contain some.
> >
> > Anyone have any thoughts?  Should my upstream configure their setup.py
> > to put these .pyx files elsewhere?  I'm not familiar enough with Cython
> > to have a feel for how this typicaly works.
> >
>  * Note: I haven't touched cython and I last used Pyrex in Fedora 4 or so.
>  
>  I think that .pyx files should not be included since they're first compiled
>  to C and then compiled to object code.  They don't do any definite harm to
>  be included but they don't serve any purpose.  If we found .c or .cpp files
>  on the filesystem after make install we'd probably rm them for cleanliness
>  and I think these belong in the same category. 
Yeah, I'm inclined to agree.

~spot

[Colin Walters]

2010/7/9 Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger(a)gmail.com&gt;:
>  I think that .pyx files should not be included since they're first compiled
>  to C and then compiled to object code.  They don't do any definite harm to
>  be included but they don't serve any purpose.  If we found .c or .cpp files
>  on the filesystem after make install we'd probably rm them for cleanliness
>  and I think these belong in the same category. 
(Or better, patch the upstream build system to not install them)