Aaron Griffin wrote:
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 6:34 AM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
Allan McRae wrote:
Hi all,
A few recent bugs have highlighted issues with how we deal with compiled versions (.pyo/.pyc) of python (.py) files. We should probably make a policy on how these should be handled during packaging. Given I am the python maintainer, I suppose I should be doing this, but I am wanting to do some more makepkg/pacman stuff so it would be good if someone else wants to take the lead on this.
Here is a couple of policies from other distros Debian: http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/python-policy/ Fedora: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python
If someone (not necessarily a dev) wants to help out with this, then it would be much appreciated.
And given I have already been asked twice what the best way to start this is, here goes a wiki page to collect ideas on this: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User:Allan/Python_Packaging_Policy
I wish I had something to help here. Do you have anything in mind as to how we will actually deal with pyc files on an upgrade (i.e. 2.5 to 2.6) ?
Well, the options I see are 1) .pyc/.pyo files are created as part of packaging. That way we just rebuild the package if needed during an upgrade. 2) .pyc/.pyo files are recreated on python/package update. So, we would have a pre_update script that finds all the .pyc/.pyo files, deletes them and a post_update script that rebuilds them. In this option, it would be better if .pyc/.pyo files were not part of a package as I don't like one package touching another packages files. I'm heavily leaning towards #1 as I don't like having files on my root partition that are not controlled by pacman. However, that can lead to a lot of conflicts during upgrades in the short term... I haven't thought about this any further than that at the moment. Allan