Le Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:13:33 -0500,
Aaron Griffin <aaronmgrif...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> >> > I have found a way to automate that which is, I believe, not
> >> > PKGBUILD-dependant.
> >> >
> >> > Here's what I do in the PKGBUILD:
> >> >
> >> > [...]
> >> > install="pyo_remover.install"
> >> > [...]
> >> > build() {
> >> > [...]
> >> > # Take care of .pyo files
> >> > cd $pkgdir
> >> > echo "post_install() {" > $startdir/$install
> >> > for _i in $(find . -name '*.pyo'); do
> >> > echo "rm -f "$(echo "$_i" | cut -c2-) >> $startdir/$install
> >> > echo > "$_i"
> >> > done
> >> > echo -e '}\npost_upgrade() {\npost_install $1\n}\n' >>
> >> > $startdir/$install
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > pyo_remover.install can be anything, even an empty file. For packages
> >> > that need a .install file this has to be adapted.
> >> >
> >> > Does this look like a good way to solve the problem? I know the way I
> >> > do it for now is kind of ugly, but I think it could be much cleaner if
> >> > the same kind of thing was done directly by makepkg.
> >>
> >>
> >> Did you mean for this to be post_install? This should be done on
> >> remove, if I'm not mistaken, as the pyo files are actually a good
> >> thing
> >
> > No, I meant that to be post_install, because that way:
> >
> > - Pacman will track the .pyo files because they are in the package (as
> > empty text files), so they will be deleted on removal.
> >
> > - The .pyo files will be deleted after install so I think they will be
> > re-generated at runtime. This means there will always be generated for the
> > right architecture and Python version.
> >
> > By the way I think you can do the same for .pyc files.
>
> This requires that the program has write access to those files, which
> is generally not the case
This is true. A way to fix it would be to run 'python -O -mcompileall -q
/usr/lib/python2.6' as root. That will generate .pyo files for all python
packages though, so it means all the packages have to track theirs, otherwise
there will be stray files.
--
catwell
