On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:12 PM, Daniel Isenmann <daniel.isenmann@gmx.de> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:10:24 -0500 Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Daniel Isenmann <daniel.isenmann@gmx.de> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:02:15 -0400 Eric Bélanger <snowmaniscool@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Eric Bélanger <snowmaniscool@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Daniel Isenmann > <daniel.isenmann@gmx.de> wrote: >> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:08:33 -0500 >> Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Daniel Isenmann >>> <daniel.isenmann@gmx.de> wrote: >>> > On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:45:20 -0400 >>> > Eric Bélanger <snowmaniscool@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> >> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Travis Willard >>> >> <twillard2@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> >> As I can see now, these are .pyo files. Are they >>> >> >> generate at runtime or something like that? They are >>> >> >> not in the package. >>> >> >> >>> >> > >>> >> > .pyo files are, I believe, "optimized" python files >>> >> > generated during runtime. >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >> I beleiie so too. I think there was a thread about how to >>> >> deal with these files. I think the info is in a wiki >>> >> article about python packaging guidelines. The other >>> >> remaining file is wicd.log wich is generated at runtime >>> >> too. >>> > >>> > I have nothing found about those files. The article about >>> > python package guidelines is very short. Nothing special >>> > about it. >>> > >>> > The log file is acceptable, but the pyo files are annyoing. >>> >>> I imagine that this only happens with apps run as root (or >>> have write permissions to their install dir). >>> >>> I think the best thing, for the time being, is to do this in >>> a pre_remove (so you have access to pacman -Ql at that time) >>> and do something like: >>> >>> PKGNAME=wicd >>> pre_remove () { >>> for pyo in $(pacman -Qql $PKGNAME | grep \.py$ | sed >>> 's|.py$|.pyo|g'); do if [ -f "$pyo" ]; then >>> rm "$pyo" >>> fi >>> done >>> } >> >> Ok, I will do it this way, but shouldn't we have a better >> solution for this for the future? > > Well, the only sane way to do it would be to make sure pacman > tracks the .pyo files by generating them as part of the package > creation process, but I don't even know if that's possible >
it's possible. Just create empty files with the same name with 'touch' in the build function.
Looks like python -O py_compile.py foo.py will do this. And it looks like setuptools has an --optimize argument. I'd suggest trying this
python setup.py install --optimize=1 ...other args...
yeah, just found that here: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User:Allan/Python_Packaging_Policy
Why wasn't that added to the "official" Python Packaging Policy here: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Python_Package_Guidelines
I will change that in the next package version of wicd. I just committed the other "fix", don't want to release the next package right now. Have to remember that page.
Added it :)
The only problem is, that architecture 'any' doesn't work anymore with this install option. But I think that this problem doesn't affect so much packages to worry about, I think.
Are you saying that the .pyo files are no longer architecture independent? I was under the assumption they were.