[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Ending/reducing bytecode compilation, loosening dependencies



On Fri, Dec 30, 2005 at 10:59:45PM -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote:
> What would you suggest doing about "hybrid" packages which are primarily
> applications, but also want to make their modules available to other
> Python programs?  Two examples here are pychecker and epydoc (both
> maintained by me).  Right now, for those packages, I stick the .py, .pyc
> and .pyo files in site-python, compile the modules for the default
> version of Python, and then live with the inefficiency of recompiling
> them for non-default Python versions and/or the possibility that root
> will recompile them for the wrong version.  This isn't a great solution,
> but it works.  However, some folks don't seem to like this solution very
> much, and I've definitely gotten some pushback about the structure of
> these packages.

Sorry to reply to my own mail, but after re-reading this, I realized it
wasn't clear that I wrote this in the context of, "if applications were
to be treated differently than libraries..."

KEN

-- 
Kenneth J. Pronovici <pronovic@debian.org>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: