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 -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
