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]

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]

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]

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.

--
Yann

[Diez B. Roggisch]

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.

Diez

[Yann Leboulanger]

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