[issue1533164] Installed but not listed *.pyo break bdist_rpm

Changes by Martin v. Löwis : -- resolution: -> fixed status: open -> closed ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing lis

[issue1533164] Installed but not listed *.pyo break bdist_rpm

Martin v. Löwis added the comment: > done in r70094 and r70096 Thanks! ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe

[issue1533164] Installed but not listed *.pyo break bdist_rpm

Tarek Ziadé added the comment: done in r70094 and r70096 ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.

[issue1533164] Installed but not listed *.pyo break bdist_rpm

Tarek Ziadé added the comment: > I agree. I had another complaint about that patch, though, which > is the addition of an option for not including .pyo files. > I still like to see addition of this option reverted. I'll remove this option then, and make -O1 hardcoded -- status: close

[issue1533164] Installed but not listed *.pyo break bdist_rpm

Martin v. Löwis added the comment: > BTW: The "brp-python-bytecompile creates usr/bin/*.pyo" issue has been > resolved, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182498#c8 Ok. Perhaps it isn't needed to exclude it, then. ___ Python tracker

[issue1533164] Installed but not listed *.pyo break bdist_rpm

Mads Kiilerich added the comment: Ok, if you will keep bdist_rpm's new .pyo creation then you are right. FWIW I think it is a bit of an ugly hack and would prefer another solution. BTW: The "brp-python-bytecompile creates usr/bin/*.pyo" issue has been resolved, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_

[issue1533164] Installed but not listed *.pyo break bdist_rpm

Martin v. Löwis added the comment: > Ok. But preventing invocation of brp-python-bytecompile is IMHO not a > solution. brp-python-bytecompile is needed for the reasons mentioned in > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python#Including_pyos . What reason specifically are you referring to? T

[issue1533164] Installed but not listed *.pyo break bdist_rpm

Mads Kiilerich added the comment: > IIUC, setting > > %define __os_install_post %{___build_post} > > should prevent invocation of brp-python-bytecompile. Ok. But preventing invocation of brp-python-bytecompile is IMHO not a solution. brp-python-bytecompile is needed for the reasons mentioned in

[issue1533164] Installed but not listed *.pyo break bdist_rpm

Martin v. Löwis added the comment: > What is the goal of bdist_rpm? I haven't seen that stated explicitly > anywhere, but I assume the goal is to make a fair attempt to easily > create usable RPMs for some software already using distutil, > acknowledging that it might not work in all cases (beca

[issue1533164] Installed but not listed *.pyo break bdist_rpm

Mads Kiilerich added the comment: Martin, What is the goal of bdist_rpm? I haven't seen that stated explicitly anywhere, but I assume the goal is to make a fair attempt to easily create usable RPMs for some software already using distutil, acknowledging that it might not work in all cases (beca

[issue1533164] Installed but not listed *.pyo break bdist_rpm

Martin v. Löwis added the comment: > I've read the thread while working in the patch, > and comment #28 explains that brp-python-bytecompile is called over > the rpms and requires pyo files within the file list. Sure, I'm not objecting. I claim that the patch might be insufficient, and that br

[issue1533164] Installed but not listed *.pyo break bdist_rpm

Tarek Ziadé added the comment: I've read the thread while working in the patch, and comment #28 explains that brp-python-bytecompile is called over the rpms and requires pyo files within the file list. plus: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python#Including_pyos Now, if some defines i

[issue1533164] Installed but not listed *.pyo break bdist_rpm

Martin v. Löwis added the comment: Tarek, I think you committed too quickly. Please consider my comments. ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-

[issue1533164] Installed but not listed *.pyo break bdist_rpm

Martin v. Löwis added the comment: See comment 1 in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=236535 It might be that this patch still doesn't solve the problem, namely if there are non-library .py files in the distribution. They get compiled by brp-python-bytecompile, but the byte code file

[issue1533164] Installed but not listed *.pyo break bdist_rpm

Changes by Tarek Ziadé : ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python

[issue1533164] Installed but not listed *.pyo break bdist_rpm

Changes by Tarek Ziadé : -- status: open -> closed ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mai

[issue1533164] Installed but not listed *.pyo break bdist_rpm

Tarek Ziadé added the comment: Done in r70049 and r70051. Thanks for everyone's help ! ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing

[issue1533164] Installed but not listed *.pyo break bdist_rpm

Tarek Ziadé added the comment: before I commit this patch I will do this one : #5378 to be able to lower down the output of the rpm/rpmbuild command calls -- dependencies: +adding --quiet to bdist_rpm ___ Python tracker

[issue1533164] Installed but not listed *.pyo break bdist_rpm

Changes by Tarek Ziadé : Removed file: http://bugs.python.org/file13153/rpm.patch ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list U

[issue1533164] Installed but not listed *.pyo break bdist_rpm

Changes by Tarek Ziadé : Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file13181/rpm.ptch ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsu

[issue1533164] Installed but not listed *.pyo break bdist_rpm

Changes by Tarek Ziadé : Removed file: http://bugs.python.org/file13151/rpm.patch ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list U

[issue1533164] Installed but not listed *.pyo break bdist_rpm

Changes by Tarek Ziadé : Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file13153/rpm.patch ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Uns

[issue1533164] Installed but not listed *.pyo break bdist_rpm

Changes by Tarek Ziadé : Removed file: http://bugs.python.org/file13150/test_bdist_rpm.patch ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mai

[issue1533164] Installed but not listed *.pyo break bdist_rpm

Tarek Ziadé added the comment: The patch is ready. I'll ask at Distutils-SIG what people think about the force-optimize option name, then I'll commit it for 2.7 and 3.1 -- versions: -Python 2.6, Python 3.0 Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file13151/rpm.patch

[issue1533164] Installed but not listed *.pyo break bdist_rpm

Tarek Ziadé added the comment: I am now able to reproduce it, thanks to Mads help for the record, on a fresh Fedora 10, you need to do: $ yum groupinstall "Development Tools" $ yum install rpmdevtools Then the problem will occur like described. Moving to the next stage : fixing Distutils for

[issue1533164] Installed but not listed *.pyo break bdist_rpm

Changes by Tarek Ziadé : Removed file: http://bugs.python.org/file13097/rpm.patch ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list U

[issue1533164] Installed but not listed *.pyo break bdist_rpm

Changes by Tarek Ziadé : Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file13150/test_bdist_rpm.patch ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list maili

[issue1533164] Installed but not listed *.pyo break bdist_rpm

Antoine Pitrou added the comment: > But I am unable to reproduce the problem. > > The rpm is built fine using my test and the provided example, > with or without the -O1 option... IIUC, the problem occurs not on building the RPM, but on trying to install it. _

[issue1533164] Installed but not listed *.pyo break bdist_rpm

Tarek Ziadé added the comment: Ok, looks good now, thanks a lot. But I am unable to reproduce the problem. The rpm is built fine using my test and the provided example, with or without the -O1 option... I have tried with Python trunk and Fedora's Python 2.5 Would you mind trying with the cu

[issue1533164] Installed but not listed *.pyo break bdist_rpm

Mads Kiilerich added the comment: The command "rpm" is (now, and in rpm.org version) for runtime and installation only. Rpm building is done by /usr/bin/rpm-build (from the package with the same name, run "yum install rpm-build"). /usr/lib/python2.5/distutils/command/bdist_rpm.py will select r

[issue1533164] Installed but not listed *.pyo break bdist_rpm

Tarek Ziadé added the comment: Mads, I am all set now, under a fresh Fedora 10. But it seems that the generated command for rpm does not work. it calls: $ rpm -ba --define _topdir xxx --clean build/xxx/foo.spec -ba unkown option. (My Fedora runs rpm 4.6.0rc3) Anything special to set under

[issue1533164] Installed but not listed *.pyo break bdist_rpm

Tarek Ziadé added the comment: > Perhaps the patch could be accepted in distutils so that bdist_rpm > always runs setup with -O1? Or some other change that could make > it easy to configure/customize distutils to match the platforms > needs ... We could have a new parameter for bdist_rpm for

[issue1533164] Installed but not listed *.pyo break bdist_rpm

Mads Kiilerich added the comment: Note that: This bug now is tracked in Fedora as https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=236535 The root of the problem on Fedora is that SElinux will give noisy warnings if python tries to to access or create non-existing foo.pyo for a packaged foo.py. Fed

[issue1533164] Installed but not listed *.pyo break bdist_rpm

Tarek Ziadé added the comment: ok then: I am creating a Fedora 5 VM. It'll be useful in any case in the future to follow bdist_rpm issues. ___ Python tracker ___ _

[issue1533164] Installed but not listed *.pyo break bdist_rpm

Antoine Pitrou added the comment: Tarek, the issue can only be reproduced on Redhat/Fedora-like systems (I have a Mandriva here and therefore can't check). But it's likely that the issue still exists. -- nosy: +kiilerix ___ Python tracker

[issue1533164] Installed but not listed *.pyo break bdist_rpm

Tarek Ziadé added the comment: I couldn't reproduce the problem under Python 2.5, 2.6 and current trunk. I am not sure I have the same conditions though, because I use a standalone RPM version under mac os x (see http://rpm5.org/files/rpm/rpm-5.0/BINARY/) Could you try to reproduce it under t

[issue1533164] Installed but not listed *.pyo break bdist_rpm

Lukas Lueg added the comment: passing optimize=1 does not help when there is a script (...scripts=['bla.py']...) in the given distribution. The error will be thrown for bla.pyo and bla.pyc -- nosy: +ebfe ___ Python tracker

[issue1533164] Installed but not listed *.pyo break bdist_rpm

Jim Baker added the comment: Ideally packages should not need to add "optimize=1" to their setup.cfg, as this currently breaks Jython compatibility. This is because Jython, including 2.5, does not support the -O flag. -- nosy: +jbaker ___ Python tr

[issue1533164] Installed but not listed *.pyo break bdist_rpm

Antoine Pitrou added the comment: Indeed, this is a well-known issue. Many packages put an "optimize=1" in their setup.cfg in order to solve it. -- assignee: -> tarek nosy: +pitrou, tarek type: -> behavior versions: +Python 2.6, Python 2.7, Python 3.0, Python 3.1 -Python 2.4, Python

[issue1533164] Installed but not listed *.pyo break bdist_rpm

Changes by Forest Wilkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: -- nosy: +forest ___ Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mai

[issue1533164] Installed but not listed *.pyo break bdist_rpm

Changes by Tim Wegener <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: -- nosy: +twegener versions: +Python 2.5 ___ Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ ___ P