Yann Leboulanger
1/25/2008 12:02:00 AM
Diez B. Roggisch wrote:
> Yann Leboulanger schrieb:
>> Diez B. Roggisch wrote:
>>> Yann Leboulanger schrieb:
>>>> Yann Leboulanger wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I use autoconf / automake to manage my python project, and I'l like
>>>>> make / make install to create / install .pyo files instead of .py
>>>>> files.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there something I should add to my Makefile.am files to do that?
>>>>> Or should I do all that myself with py_compile module?
>>>>>
>>>>> Are there some examples somewhere with autotools?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for your help
>>>>
>>>> Hehe replying to myself. It seems I just have to replace
>>>> project_DATA = $(srcdir)/*.py
>>>> by
>>>> project_PYTHON = $(srcdir)/*.py
>>>>
>>>> Then when I do make install, it installs .py, .pyc and .pyo.
>>>> Would it be possible to install only .pyo? Is it a good idea?
>>>
>>> There might be the occasional code that relies on doc-strings to work
>>> - seldomly, but possible. Which are obmitted by .pyo, but not of pyc.
>>>
>>> Apart from that, having only pyc-files (or pyo for that matter)
>>> sucks. Just today I had to delve into a ZOPE-application, setting
>>> breakpoints and getting things done. It would have been impossible or
>>> at least much more inconvenient to debug if I hadn't had the sources
>>> available (and put at a place where they actually get invoked from
>>> the interpreter, not lying around unrelated)
>>>
>>> Diez
>>
>> Source are available i ntarballs, but when I do make install I don't
>> care to install .py files. .pyo are enough to run the application.
>
> As I said - not installing them will make debugging for someone who
> knows how to deal with it just more inconvenient. And if you plan to
> release the code anyway - don't bother separating pyc/pyo from the py.
>
That's a point of view I understand, but some prefer smaller
installation size. Now it installs .py, .pyc, and .pyo, so 3 times bigger.
--
Yann