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 -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
