Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 12:18:56 -0800 From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Mathieu Arnold <mat@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Michael Gmelin <grembo@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Best way to deal with .pyc files? Message-ID: <bd309186-a9ee-3d33-06bb-083ba7b1e462@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20181213093504.vwene4mp5cy5ehgd@atuin.in.mat.cc> References: <f2c1b368-cd2e-85a3-a5c7-794d69204625@FreeBSD.org> <8D6D9096-468D-4E69-A6F2-79142C52395C@freebsd.org> <b37ea393-6321-826d-7c31-153a0822de87@FreeBSD.org> <d24044c0-b620-f7fa-63e6-bc446134c988@FreeBSD.org> <20181213093504.vwene4mp5cy5ehgd@atuin.in.mat.cc>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 12/13/18 1:35 AM, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 11:22:49AM -0800, John Baldwin wrote:
>> On 12/7/18 10:17 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
>>> On 12/6/18 11:17 AM, Michael Gmelin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 6. Dec 2018, at 19:21, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The devel/gdb port installs python scripts into /usr/local/share/gdb<ver>/python.
>>>>> If you then run kgdb as root (not that unusual), it will generate .pyc files in
>>>>> those directories that are not deleted by 'pkg delete'. What is the best way to
>>>>> handle this case? Should the pkg-plist include @rmtry entries for each pyc
>>>>> file or is there a better way?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Pre-generate the pyc files on package build and install them with the port, so they become part of plist (there are examples of that in the ports tree, whenever possible for both py27 and py3x).
>>>
>>> Ok. One follow-up question. GDB's python bindings work with both py2 and
>>> py3, but the bindings are optional. Right now PYTHON is a port option
>>> (but on by default). If I wanted to add flavors I would probably want them
>>> to be conditional on the option, so the results would be 'gdb' and
>>> 'gdb-py3' packages by default, but if someone was using poudriere locally
>>> and disabled python, I would only want to build a single 'gdb' without
>>> python. So, can I make the flavors conditional on an option or is it too
>>> late to define flavors after including bsd.ports.options.mk?
>>>
>>> That is, can I do something this:
>>>
>>> OPTIONS_DEFINE= PYTHON
>>> OPTIONS_DEFAULT= PYTHON
>>>
>>> .include <bsd.port.pre.mk>
>>>
>>> .if ${PORT_OPTIONS:MPYTHON}
>>> USES_PYTHON= flavors
>>> .endif
>>
>> FYI, this worked:
>
> All things considered, it does not matter when you set
> USE_PYTHON=flavors because it does nothing if USES does not contain python.
Yes, I eventually figured this out and the current patch just sets USE_PYTHON
unconditionally.
--
John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bd309186-a9ee-3d33-06bb-083ba7b1e462>