creating .pyo with make

[Yann Leboulanger]

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
--
Yann

[Yann Leboulanger]

Re: creating .pyo with make

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?

--
Yann

[Diez B. Roggisch]

Re: creating .pyo with make

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

[Yann Leboulanger]

Re: creating .pyo with make

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_PYTH ON = $(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.

--
Yann

[Diez B. Roggisch]

Re: creating .pyo with make

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_DAT A = $(srcdir)/*.py
>>by
>>project_PYTHO N = $(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.

Diez

[Yann Leboulanger]

Re: creating .pyo with make

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_DA TA = $(srcdir)/*.py
>>>by
>>>project_PYTH ON = $(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