Python package packaging question
Toshio
toshio at tiki-lounge.com
Mon Feb 2 22:23:50 UTC 2004
n Mon, 2004-02-02 at 16:55, Nalin Dahyabhai wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 04:18:09PM -0500, Mihai Ibanescu wrote:
> > It may seem like it. .pyc and .pyo files are there for performance
> > reasons. .py files are there, because debugging would be a nightmare
> > otherwise.
>
> The byte-compiled versions will always be generated if you have write
> access to the directory. (This is almost always the case if you happen
> to run a script as root.) If you run a script as root and then attempt
> to uninstall the package which includes that script, some directories
> which are unique to the package can't be removed because the .pyc and
> .pyo files are still there (even though the .py files are now gone).
>
Right. I think the .py files are important. I think one of the pyc or
pyo files would be nice (pyc because python creates those by default?)
But I'm very tempted to %ghost the pyo files rather than install them
because they take up more space, aren't going to be used most of the
time, and don't seem to provide much of a performance change. (I
believe %ghost also autoremoves the files on package de-install, if I'm
wrong, would someone correct me?)
> Some packages include the byte-compiled versions of their scripts to
> avoid this. Personally I think all packages which include python
> scripts should include both the .pyc and .pyo files (and that the
> default RPM configuration should automate this), but I don't think
> there's ever been a consensus on that.
>
I'd like to see consensus because I see a potential to generate some
boilerplate code for python packaging if we can agree on what the
standard should be.
-Toshio
--
Toshio <toshio at tiki-lounge.com>
More information about the devel
mailing list