On Monday 09 August 2004 17:37, Zoltan Kota wrote: > As I know having the pyc > files might make the application to load a > bit faster. I find that Section 6.1.2 found in the below link helps in making some packaging policy decisions. http://docs.python.org/tut/node8.html In short: pyc: byte-compiled (marshalled code objects with 8 byte magic header) pyo: byte-compiled w/o asserts (-O) pyo: byte-compiled w/o asserts, __doc__ (-OO) The Masters of Python had the packaging pyc discussion awhile back: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/1999-March/000224.html Also a good piece on site-python/: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/1999-March/000208.html So, the current Fedora Python template, I think, needs a bit more discussion. Particularly wrt to Fred Drake's comment: On Mon, 29 Mar 1999, Fred L. Drake wrote: > Only use site-python/ if you really are confident that your package >will stand the test of Python interpreter updates. Unless there is a >major problem with diskspace, just don't do this! Couple of questions I have on the template: 1. Why do you install with -O1 when you're not going to include the .pyo and just %ghost them? 2. Does worrying about .pyo also go under Fred's "Unless there is a major problem with diskspace" axiom? 3. Why worry about noarch packages vs arch-dependent when changes in the Python API could break a package anyway? 4. If there are noarch packages, wouldn't it be prudent to execute the compileall during %post since the Python marshalled code objects is subject to change between different versions? thanks, -- -jeff
