Re: Opinions on pychecker bug 137320?
On Thu, 2003-09-11 at 13:32, Kenneth Pronovici wrote:
[...]
> Actually, the kicker is, pychecker isn't a Python script - it's a shell
> script (condensed below):
[...]
Using a script like this to pick which version of python to use seems
wierd to me... it doesn't have much benefits over just using a
particular version of python explicitly directly on the python script.
> > There are two downsides; you introduce a bunch of new packages, and you
> > replicate the same files in each package.
>
> 'Course, that's the same problem that every other Python package has,
> right?
[...]
In many (most?) cases the "python[X.Y]-foo + python-foo wrapper" scheme
is used for extension modules that have different binaries for different
versions of python anyway. I don't know if this scheme is used for many
pure-python modules because of the inefficient duplication.
> Ok, I see what you're saying. I agree, the second option is probably
> the best at this time. If my postinst builds the .pyc files with the
> default python, and assuming no one runs pychecker as root with a python
> version other than the default, this is as close to an optimal best-case
> as I'm going to get. At least until the transition from 2.3 to 2.4,
> when all of the .pyc files will become invalid again. <sigh>
hopefuly by the time python (2.4) is upon us, it will have in place a
scheme to reconfigure all packages that depend on "python" so that they
get re-compiled.
--
Donovan Baarda <abo@minkirri.apana.org.au>
http://minkirri.apana.org.au/~abo/
Reply to: