Le Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:13:33 -0500, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> a écrit :
I have found a way to automate that which is, I believe, not PKGBUILD-dependant.
Here's what I do in the PKGBUILD:
[...] install="pyo_remover.install" [...] build() { [...] # Take care of .pyo files cd $pkgdir echo "post_install() {" > $startdir/$install for _i in $(find . -name '*.pyo'); do echo "rm -f "$(echo "$_i" | cut -c2-) >> $startdir/$install echo > "$_i" done echo -e '}\npost_upgrade() {\npost_install $1\n}\n' >> $startdir/$install }
pyo_remover.install can be anything, even an empty file. For packages that need a .install file this has to be adapted.
Does this look like a good way to solve the problem? I know the way I do it for now is kind of ugly, but I think it could be much cleaner if the same kind of thing was done directly by makepkg.
Did you mean for this to be post_install? This should be done on remove, if I'm not mistaken, as the pyo files are actually a good thing
No, I meant that to be post_install, because that way:
- Pacman will track the .pyo files because they are in the package (as empty text files), so they will be deleted on removal.
- The .pyo files will be deleted after install so I think they will be re-generated at runtime. This means there will always be generated for the right architecture and Python version.
By the way I think you can do the same for .pyc files.
This requires that the program has write access to those files, which is generally not the case
This is true. A way to fix it would be to run 'python -O -mcompileall -q /usr/lib/python2.6' as root. That will generate .pyo files for all python packages though, so it means all the packages have to track theirs, otherwise there will be stray files. -- catwell