Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod From: Scott Kitterman Newsgroups: linux.debian.maint.python Subject: Re: Amend Debian Python Proposal to Include More Python Metadata? Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 20:00:02 +0100 Message-ID: References: X-Mailbox-Line: From debian-python-request@lists.debian.org Fri Jan 22 18:58:46 2016 Old-Return-Path: X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.1 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3 tests=[BAYES_00=-2, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, LDO_WHITELIST=-5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Policyd-Weight: using cached result; rate:hard: -5 Dkim-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=201409; t=1453489110; bh=DnBqdkXmHXdTstsAP3XuJxM8IqacM8PZQIFH7lcqSic=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=WmLRynSjeolgNLT5WIeGqNdvRK4R10TVh8o6Du58lr+mXc35pf1YrWxjBiOsOWMZ1 ICesjPo05Svc90SE5eGLh+Jgep/n5jVtReWkVJWadmUK1Q0OuwZI6qk6FUgLE9BSWK I3gbIaBJ0yahhXPwUSiXwv5xb/5Ituoc0s/EKjo8= User-Agent: KMail/4.13.3 (Linux/3.13.0-71-generic; KDE/4.13.3; x86_64; ; ) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13451 List-ID: List-URL: List-Archive: https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/7307234.P08sIH7HQY@kitterma-e6430 Approved: robomod@news.nic.it Lines: 36 Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway Sender: robomod@news.nic.it X-Original-Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 13:58:30 -0500 X-Original-Message-ID: <7307234.P08sIH7HQY@kitterma-e6430> X-Original-References: <2067882.9JkdsQ7VrC@kitterma-e6430> Xref: csiph.com linux.debian.maint.python:8128 On Friday, January 22, 2016 01:47:28 PM Fred Drake wrote: > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 1:41 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > For Debian it's bad because we don't ship the .pyc files in the package > > they are managed locally by the installed python system. They are also > > unnecessary because setuptools/pip/python is smart enough to relate .pyc > > files to their .py files without them being listed. > > The .pyc files aren't shipped in the .deb, or they aren't installed > when the .deb is installed? They aren't shipped in the .deb, so the list of files shipped in the .deb shouldn't include them. > If they're installed, I think they should be listed. If not installed > when the package is installed, then they definitely shouldn't be > listed. No I don't think they should be. There's no need for that and it may change. Then you have a maintenance nightmare. Currently we have both python3.4 and python3.5 as supported versions so as part of installation *.cpython-34.pyc and *.cpython-35.pyc are generated on the local file system. As the python3 versions change, those will change and Python knows how to deal with that as long as the .py files are present. Scott K > > Part of the goal here is to make sure that regardless of the installation > > method, there's a list of files that were installed. Since Debian > > packages > > don't install the .pyc files, listing them is wrong. > > I agree that listing them if they aren't installed is wrong. > > > -Fred