Dne 3.2.2010 18:39, Antoine Pitrou napsal(a): > Neil Schemenauer <nas <at> arctrix.com> writes: >> >> Thanks for doing the work of writing a PEP. The rational section >> could use some strengthing, I think. Who is benefiting from this >> feature? Is it the distribution package maintainers? Maybe people >> who use a distribution packaged Python and install packages from >> PyPI. It's not clear to me, anyhow. > > It would also be nice to have other packagers' take on this (Redhat, Mandriva, > etc.). But of course you aren't responsible if they don't show up. As the SUSE guy, i don't care either way. This has simply no benefits or drawbacks for us. This solution can only be beneficial in systems like Debian's python-support, where you byte-compile when installing. We byte-compile at build time, so if we wanted to support more than one python within one package, we would need to distribute a rpm full of different .pycs for all supported python versions. Yes, that was not possible before and it is possible with this PEP, but there is no sense in doing it ;) That said, i don't particularly care whether the installed pycs are in a separate __pycache__ directory or next to their sources. (there were very good arguments in the other thread against subdir clutter, one more from me: each subdirectory has a separate entry in rpm database, so by creating subdir clutter you're also cluttering our packaging system) +0 from me regards m. > > cheers > > Antoine. > > > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list > Python-Dev at python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/jmatejek%40suse.cz
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4