On Fri, 20 Feb 2009, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Jeremy Katz <katzj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yeah, I'm for putting it in. While it may cause a couple more
speed-bumps for the rebuild next week, it'll raise our quality in the
long run and therefore seems like the "right" thing to do
Should we prepare for some sort of organized group effort to help
maintainers who get poked in the eye with failures caused by this?
Worst case, this impacts a lot of smaller python packages and it would
be nice if we could stand up a crack team of python experts to help
sort out the fallout for maintainers who get caught unprepared.
I seriously doubt this is going to affect too many python packages, the
bytecompile just catches direct syntax errors, nothing more (and nothing
less):
improt yum # will be caught, syntax error
import uym # wont be noticed, run-time binding
myfunction( # will be caught, syntax error
myfucntion() # wont be noticed, run-time binding
If somebody feels like scripting a bit, it should be possible to fairly
accurately determine affected packages: if a package has *.py files but
not the corresponding *.pyc and *.pyo files for each of them, the
byte-compile has failed and with the new check, building the package will
fail.
- Panu -
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
