| 1 |
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 10:58:06 +0200 |
| 2 |
Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 30-09-2012 10:31:17 +0200, Pacho Ramos wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > > Personally, I usually run: |
| 6 |
> > > > - python_clean_py-compile_files -> Clean py-compile files to disable |
| 7 |
> > > > byte-compilation allowing us to drop all various ways of doing this that |
| 8 |
> > > > were living in the tree some time ago. |
| 9 |
> > > |
| 10 |
> > > Hmm, what's the problem with compiling them? Do you mean some case when |
| 11 |
> > > the results of the compilation are different from the way done |
| 12 |
> > > by the eclass? |
| 13 |
> > > |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > Well, if I don't misremember, we currently prefer to compile them at |
| 16 |
> > postinst phase instead of during src_compile, but maybe this is no |
| 17 |
> > longer needed (no idea :( ) |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> The files are indeed cache, and should be generated on the system that |
| 20 |
> installs the files, not the system that builds them. They are currently |
| 21 |
> outside of VDB. pyc files store the path to the original files, so |
| 22 |
> generating in ${ROOT} yields in wrong paths. Python sometimes |
| 23 |
> regenerates the files when it runs. It may as well just ignore them |
| 24 |
> (since they are newer but non-matching, unclear to me). In the worst |
| 25 |
> case it returns "Bad marshalling data". |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I'm afraid you are wrong here. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
I've just tested an ebuild using distutils (flaggie) and autotools |
| 30 |
(pygobject) and both install .pyc files with correct paths (i.e. with |
| 31 |
DESTDIR stripped). |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Best regards, |
| 35 |
Michał Górny |
Archives