*.py packaging, again

Jeff Johnson n3npq at mac.com
Wed Jul 13 15:13:06 CEST 2011

On Jul 13, 2011, at 9:07 AM, Jakub Bogusz wrote:

> I don't like the idea of __pycache__ not managed by rpm (or not

We likely disagree on the details, perhaps sharply, of
	__pycache__ managed by rpm
but not on the general goal.

> maintained with rpm database in case of more robust post scripts)
> because of at least:
> - possible inconsistences (like leftovers in case of upgrade failures;
>  in such case it would be even possible that after installing another
>  version of package with *.py files having older date than pycache,
>  pycache won't be rebuilt)
> - more work needed to find package "owning" __pycache__/* files
> - one more place to hide some malicious code not detectable by rpm -Va

If you can state positively (the above comments are all negative problem avoidance,
not positive feature seeking) what you would like to see for RPM management
of __pycache__, I'll try to get some implementation together in RPM.

If the chosen implementation is %post scrip tie, well, so be it. Some
attempt to manage __pycache__ is better than none. I do think much
better than %post scripting needs to be attempted: the edit to
add functionality in 10's to 100's of *.spec files converges
to a solution rather slowly.


73 de Jeff

More information about the pld-devel-en mailing list