On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 09:48:58 +1000,
Allan McRae <allan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Jan de Groot wrote:
> > On Mon, 2009-10-19 at 15:18 -0500, Aaron Griffin wrote:
> >
> >> Are you saying that the .pyo files are no longer architecture
> >> independent? I was under the assumption they were.
> >>
> >
> > Actually, they're even python-version specific. Updating python could
> > break the precompiled .pyo files.
> >
>
> And this whole issue was a fairly major source of headaches during the
> python-2.6 transition... which is why I started making the python
> packaging policy to deal with them, although that obviously was never
> finished with (in fact, I had never seen the comment with --optimize=1
> in it).
>
> Now my main concern about all of this is that .pyc and .pyo files used
> to contain full paths to where they were created. That meant they need
> to be created on the users system and not during the packaging stage.
> I have not confirmed if this is still the case.
>
> So the best way to deal with them seems to be:
> 1) touch them during packaging
> 2) generate them during post_install()
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.
--
catwell
