Re: question on packaging of python applications
jerome.marant@free.fr (Jérôme Marant) writes:
> Bastian Kleineidam <calvin@cs.uni-sb.de> writes:
>
> > >I recently created a debian file for my project (see http://subterfugue.org),
> > >and discovered just now why including .pyc and .pyo files directly doesn't
> > >work optimally.
> > Where is the problem? Python bytecode should be platform
> > independent! So it is safe to include .pyc and .pyo files. There is no
> > need to compile them at configure time.
> There is no need to include .pyc and .pyo in packages as python programs
> can work without at first use.
Yes, but normal users typically cannot create .pyc files, of course.
> Moreover, this makes packages bigger.
Quite true.
> That is why most of us prefer to follow Gregor Hoffleit's method
> (see postinst and prerm samples in /usr/share/doc/python-base)
> i.e py are compiled at postinst time and revoed at prerm time.
Yes, most of the packages look like this. But as I mentioned, there are
differences, and I wonder if some of the differences aren't subtle mistakes.
--Mike
--
[O]ne of the features of the Internet [...] is that small groups of people can
greatly disturb large organizations. --Charles C. Mann
Reply to: