[csw-maintainers] Automatically excluding .pyc files

Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski maciej at opencsw.org
Thu Oct 14 10:07:06 CEST 2010

No dia 14 de Outubro de 2010 07:32, Dagobert Michelsen
<dam at opencsw.org> escreveu:
> Hi Maciej,
> Am 14.10.2010 um 08:21 schrieb Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski:
>> Each Python version requires the rebuild of all the modules.  Here's a
>> sketch of what packages could be named like:
>> CSWpython (symlink only)
>> CSWpython-devel (one devel package pointing at the newest Python)
>> CSWpython26 (specific version of the interpreter)
>> CSWpython27 (specific version of the interpreter)
>> CSWpython31 (specific version of the interpreter)
>> CSWlibpython2_5_1_0 (libpython for 2.5)
>> CSWlibpython2_6_1_0 (libpython for 2.6)
>> CSWpy26-foo (Python module for 2.6)
>> CSWpy27-foo (Python module for 2.7)
>> CSWpy31-foo (Python module for 3.1)
> Just as a note: Perl is not much different here and we choose to not have
> a version in all modules. However, that required us to atomically rebuild
> all modules. Maybe it would be good to have a consistent strategy here?

If I have to choose between being consistent with how Perl is packaged
and how Python is packaged, I'd go with the latter.  I don't see any
real benefits for choosing the "one Python" strategy.  At the same
time, I see serious downsides.  For example, if you write any serious
Python code, you write it for a specific version, and you lock it down
to that Python version.  You might migrate it later on to a newer
version, but migration is a separate process.  You quite often need
Python 2.4 to run some scripts, and Python 2.6 to run others.  I might
point out that at some point in time I really wished OpenCSW provided
CSWpython-2.4, because I had scripts that used it specifically.  So,
in short, you would need a really compelling argument to convince me
that "one Python" is better.

More information about the maintainers mailing list