python3.2+ compiled files

Patryk Zawadzki patrys at
Sun Apr 3 15:15:06 CEST 2011

On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Jacek Konieczny <jajcus at> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 02:38:49PM +0200, Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
>> Except in Python you can execute/import .py files just fine. If the
>> program is not closed source, .pyc/.pyo/__pycache__ are just an
>> optimization detail. We could very well create them in %post.
> That is a very bad idea. Bad things will happen if the package is
> removed and *.py[o] stays (the module will still be visible to Python).
> Best way to make sure 'compiled' files are gone when the package is gone
> is to include them in the package.

We have %ghost and we can remove such files on uninstallation. My
point is that .py[co] is how even more of an optimization detail than
it was before. Can any other implementation of python handle
__pycache__? What if two packages install a file to somedir/? Which
gets to own __pycache__? Can python itself remove obsolete caches when
politely asked? Can it keep the __pycache__ tree in a separate prefix
instead of along the files?

Patryk Zawadzki
I solve problems.

More information about the pld-devel-en mailing list