Re: Bug#133306: apt-listchanges: Does not handle .pyc files correctly
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 10:06:06PM +0100, Christian Kurz wrote:
> On 22/02/02, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> > First, remember that this tool is explicity for the subset of packages
> > containing pure-python modules that work with multiple versions of Python.
>
> Well, but that's a good point for starting to change the setup and
> handling of .pyo and .pyc files. If there's a new central solution using
> python-register-package, I think we'll be able to find also a good
> solution like this for packages which contain an executable python
> script with addition .py files that contain used functions. So let's get
> this sorted out and in place to get the rest also fixed.
I consider anything that results in .pyo and .pyc files to be a "pure-python
module", that includes additional .py files containing used functions. These
are distinct from compiled python extensions. My initial impression is that
a large number of "python-foo" packages are either compiled extensions, or
tied specificly to particular versions of python.
BTW, the python-register-package tool in python-central requires/assumes
that any multi-version compatible .py files that need to be compiled into
.pyc and .pyo files are installed into /usr/lib/python/site-packages. I
think this is a valid assumption, but does everyone agree?
I know there are some out there that think we should be using
/usr/share/python and /usr/share/pythonX.Y. Can someone confirm/deny that
.pyc and .pyo files are truely platform independant? Are there any
endian-ness issues?
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ABO: finger abo@minkirri.apana.org.au for more info, including pgp key
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: