[aur-general] Python packaging: to build or not to build (Re: Review request for 3 related PKGBUILDs)

Eli Schwartz eschwartz93 at gmail.com
Wed Feb 15 01:43:03 UTC 2017

On 02/14/2017 07:44 PM, Bruno Pagani wrote:
> So, if I understand things well, python{,2} setup.py build should do the
> same thing for most package, and any one of the two could be used to
> then package the two versions? So this would work:
> build() {
>     python setup.py build
> }
> package_python-lib() {
>     python setup.py install --root="$pkgdir" --optimize=1 --skip-build
> }
> package_python2-lib(){
>     python2 setup.py install --root="$pkgdir" --optimize=1 --skip-build
> }
> Then I would be more in favour of splitting build and package.
> Thanks for your input,
> Bruno

Basically, yeah. Run the setuptools PKGBUILD and diff the srcdir --
you'll see they are practically byte-identical. There is a small handful
of 2/3 references, but setuptools rewrote those in the first place, and
other than that there's just __pycache__ vs side-by-side bytecode.


Eli Schwartz

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/attachments/20170214/168f01a0/attachment.asc>

More information about the aur-general mailing list