On Fr 20. Jan - 21:28:56, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jan 20, 2012, Holger Macht <hmacht@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Thu 19. Jan - 22:26:09, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > >> On Jan 19, 2012, Holger Macht <hmacht@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> > Alexandre Oliva <oliva <at> lsd.ic.unicamp.br> writes: > >> >> > >> >> Some post-install rpmbuild defaults byte-compile all packaged python > >> >> files, so don't bother removing the .pyc files, and package .py* to > >> >> get both .pyo and .pyc. It wastes a tiny little bit of space, but it > >> >> makes the spec file portable across a wider range of rpm and python > >> >> configurations. > >> > >> > Just wondering...do you have a concrete issue or an example where this is a > >> > problem? > >> > >> It failed to build on a BLAGified Fedora 16, complaining about the > >> unpackaged .pyc files. It's not just CentOS that creates the .pyc files > >> in brp-python-bytecompile. > > > So the built failed because *.pyo was there and *.pyc wasn't? > > No, both were there, but the .pyc was (correctly) flagged as not > packaged. > > > So maybe we should just always put pyc files in for maximum > > compatibility across distributions? > > Yeah. > > > Otherwise, if this really makes the build fail for some distributions, > > The CentOS-only .pyc packaging did not cover other distros that required > it, such as Fedora and BLAG, yes. > > >> Plus, they should be packaged (if at all) in python-ceph, but > >> definitely not in the main ceph package. > > > They are packaged in python-ceph. > > No, look at the patch. The ugly work-around to package .pyc files on > CentOS only was not in python-ceph. Ok, now I see. Regards Holger -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
