[PATCH] [ceph spec] package *.py* files

[PATCH] [ceph spec] package *.py* files

[Alexandre Oliva]

Some post-install rpmbuild defaults byte-compile all packaged python
files, so don't bother removing the .pyc files, and package .py* to
get both .pyo and .pyc.  It wastes a tiny little bit of space, but it
makes the spec file portable across a wider range of rpm and python
configurations.

Signed-off-by: Alexandre Oliva <oliva@lsd.ic.unicam.br>
---
 ceph.spec.in |   19 +++----------------
 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)

diff --git a/ceph.spec.in b/ceph.spec.in
index 3950fd1..d4994b5 100644
--- a/ceph.spec.in
+++ b/ceph.spec.in
@@ -255,10 +255,6 @@ mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_localstatedir}/lib/ceph/tmp/
 mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_localstatedir}/log/ceph/
 mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_localstatedir}/run/ceph/
 mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_sysconfdir}/ceph/
-# remove *.pyc where *.pyo exists
-rm $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{python_sitelib}/rados.pyc
-rm $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{python_sitelib}/rbd.pyc
-rm $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{python_sitelib}/rgw.pyc
 
 %clean
 rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
@@ -351,12 +347,6 @@ fi
 %ghost %dir %{_localstatedir}/run/ceph/
 %dir %{_sysconfdir}/ceph/
 /usr/sbin/rcceph
-# not sure why I need to list those for CentOS although they're removed in install
-%if 0%{defined centos_version}
-%{python_sitelib}/rados.pyc
-%{python_sitelib}/rbd.pyc
-%{python_sitelib}/rgw.pyc
-%endif
 %{_libdir}/rados-classes/libcls_rbd.so.*
 %{_libdir}/rados-classes/libcls_rgw.so.*
 
@@ -483,11 +473,8 @@ fi
 #################################################################################
 %files -n python-ceph
 %defattr(-,root,root,-)
-%{python_sitelib}/rados.py
-%{python_sitelib}/rados.pyo
-%{python_sitelib}/rbd.py
-%{python_sitelib}/rbd.pyo
-%{python_sitelib}/rgw.py
-%{python_sitelib}/rgw.pyo
+%{python_sitelib}/rados.py*
+%{python_sitelib}/rbd.py*
+%{python_sitelib}/rgw.py*
 
 %changelog
-- 
1.7.7.5

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist      Red Hat Brazil Compiler Engineer

Re: [PATCH] [ceph spec] package *.py* files

[Holger Macht]

Alexandre Oliva <oliva <at> lsd.ic.unicamp.br> writes:

> 
> Some post-install rpmbuild defaults byte-compile all packaged python
> files, so don't bother removing the .pyc files, and package .py* to
> get both .pyo and .pyc.  It wastes a tiny little bit of space, but it
> makes the spec file portable across a wider range of rpm and python
> configurations.

Just wondering...do you have a concrete issue or an example where this is a 
problem?

Regards
 Holger

Re: [PATCH] [ceph spec] package *.py* files

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Jan 19, 2012, Holger Macht <hmacht@suse.de> wrote:

> Alexandre Oliva <oliva <at> lsd.ic.unicamp.br> writes:
>> 
>> Some post-install rpmbuild defaults byte-compile all packaged python
>> files, so don't bother removing the .pyc files, and package .py* to
>> get both .pyo and .pyc.  It wastes a tiny little bit of space, but it
>> makes the spec file portable across a wider range of rpm and python
>> configurations.

> Just wondering...do you have a concrete issue or an example where this is a 
> problem?

It failed to build on a BLAGified Fedora 16, complaining about the
unpackaged .pyc files.  It's not just CentOS that creates the .pyc files
in brp-python-bytecompile.  Plus, they should be packaged (if at all) in
python-ceph, but definitely not in the main ceph package.


Another issue I forgot while posting the patch was that there was not a
.tar.bz2 available from the ceph site.  I ended up recompressing the .gz
as .bz2, but if ceph is going to be released compressed as .gz, the spec
file ought to be adjusted to reflect that.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist      Red Hat Brazil Compiler Engineer

Re: [PATCH] [ceph spec] package *.py* files

[Holger Macht]

On Thu 19. Jan - 22:26:09, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jan 19, 2012, Holger Macht <hmacht@suse.de> wrote:
> 
> > Alexandre Oliva <oliva <at> lsd.ic.unicamp.br> writes:
> >> 
> >> Some post-install rpmbuild defaults byte-compile all packaged python
> >> files, so don't bother removing the .pyc files, and package .py* to
> >> get both .pyo and .pyc.  It wastes a tiny little bit of space, but it
> >> makes the spec file portable across a wider range of rpm and python
> >> configurations.
> 
> > Just wondering...do you have a concrete issue or an example where this is a 
> > problem?
> 
> It failed to build on a BLAGified Fedora 16, complaining about the
> unpackaged .pyc files.  It's not just CentOS that creates the .pyc files
> in brp-python-bytecompile.  

So the built failed because *.pyo was there and *.pyc wasn't? That is
really strange, because I really don't think both are needed. But sure,
there might be python configurations out there I don't know of, which
can't handle pyo but can do fine with pyc. So maybe we should just
always put pyc files in for maximum compatibility across distributions?

Otherwise, if this really makes the build fail for some distributions,
go for it. I will not argue about the different build systems because 1)
I don't know enough about them (including the one from SUSE) and 2) I
don't won't to dig to deep because of some minor issue like this.

> Plus, they should be packaged (if at all) in python-ceph, but
> definitely not in the main ceph package.

They are packaged in python-ceph.

> Another issue I forgot while posting the patch was that there was not a
> .tar.bz2 available from the ceph site.  I ended up recompressing the .gz
> as .bz2, but if ceph is going to be released compressed as .gz, the spec
> file ought to be adjusted to reflect that.

My fault. I also recompressed them at the very start of working on the
spec file and changed it accordingly, but I'm fine for changing this
back to .gz.

Regards
 Holger

Re: [PATCH] [ceph spec] package *.py* files

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Jan 20, 2012, Holger Macht <hmacht@suse.de> wrote:

> On Thu 19. Jan - 22:26:09, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jan 19, 2012, Holger Macht <hmacht@suse.de> wrote:
>> 
>> > Alexandre Oliva <oliva <at> lsd.ic.unicamp.br> writes:
>> >> 
>> >> Some post-install rpmbuild defaults byte-compile all packaged python
>> >> files, so don't bother removing the .pyc files, and package .py* to
>> >> get both .pyo and .pyc.  It wastes a tiny little bit of space, but it
>> >> makes the spec file portable across a wider range of rpm and python
>> >> configurations.
>> 
>> > Just wondering...do you have a concrete issue or an example where this is a 
>> > problem?
>> 
>> It failed to build on a BLAGified Fedora 16, complaining about the
>> unpackaged .pyc files.  It's not just CentOS that creates the .pyc files
>> in brp-python-bytecompile.  

> So the built failed because *.pyo was there and *.pyc wasn't?

No, both were there, but the .pyc was (correctly) flagged as not
packaged.

> So maybe we should just always put pyc files in for maximum
> compatibility across distributions?

Yeah.

> Otherwise, if this really makes the build fail for some distributions,

The CentOS-only .pyc packaging did not cover other distros that required
it, such as Fedora and BLAG, yes.

>> Plus, they should be packaged (if at all) in python-ceph, but
>> definitely not in the main ceph package.

> They are packaged in python-ceph.

No, look at the patch.  The ugly work-around to package .pyc files on
CentOS only was not in python-ceph.

> My fault. I also recompressed them at the very start of working on the
> spec file and changed it accordingly, but I'm fine for changing this
> back to .gz.

I'd rather use the smallest available tarball, but we should use
whatever ceph publishes.  If it's going to be .gz from now on, we have
to change the spec file.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist      Red Hat Brazil Compiler Engineer

Re: [PATCH] [ceph spec] package *.py* files

[Sage Weil]

On Fri, 20 Jan 2012, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jan 20, 2012, Holger Macht <hmacht@suse.de> wrote:
> > So maybe we should just always put pyc files in for maximum
> > compatibility across distributions?
> 
> Yeah.

I should apply this, then?

> > My fault. I also recompressed them at the very start of working on the
> > spec file and changed it accordingly, but I'm fine for changing this
> > back to .gz.
> 
> I'd rather use the smallest available tarball, but we should use
> whatever ceph publishes.  If it's going to be .gz from now on, we have
> to change the spec file.

I'll start doing .bz2 (in addition to .gz) with 0.41.

Thanks!
sage

Re: [PATCH] [ceph spec] package *.py* files

[Holger Macht]

On Fr 20. Jan - 15:36:45, Sage Weil wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jan 2012, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > On Jan 20, 2012, Holger Macht <hmacht@suse.de> wrote:
> > > So maybe we should just always put pyc files in for maximum
> > > compatibility across distributions?
> > 
> > Yeah.
> 
> I should apply this, then?

Ok, fine with me.

> 
> > > My fault. I also recompressed them at the very start of working on the
> > > spec file and changed it accordingly, but I'm fine for changing this
> > > back to .gz.
> > 
> > I'd rather use the smallest available tarball, but we should use
> > whatever ceph publishes.  If it's going to be .gz from now on, we have
> > to change the spec file.
> 
> I'll start doing .bz2 (in addition to .gz) with 0.41.

Thanks,
 Holger

Re: [PATCH] [ceph spec] package *.py* files

[Holger Macht]

On Fr 20. Jan - 21:28:56, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jan 20, 2012, Holger Macht <hmacht@suse.de> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu 19. Jan - 22:26:09, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> On Jan 19, 2012, Holger Macht <hmacht@suse.de> wrote:
> >> 
> >> > Alexandre Oliva <oliva <at> lsd.ic.unicamp.br> writes:
> >> >> 
> >> >> Some post-install rpmbuild defaults byte-compile all packaged python
> >> >> files, so don't bother removing the .pyc files, and package .py* to
> >> >> get both .pyo and .pyc.  It wastes a tiny little bit of space, but it
> >> >> makes the spec file portable across a wider range of rpm and python
> >> >> configurations.
> >> 
> >> > Just wondering...do you have a concrete issue or an example where this is a 
> >> > problem?
> >> 
> >> It failed to build on a BLAGified Fedora 16, complaining about the
> >> unpackaged .pyc files.  It's not just CentOS that creates the .pyc files
> >> in brp-python-bytecompile.  
> 
> > So the built failed because *.pyo was there and *.pyc wasn't?
> 
> No, both were there, but the .pyc was (correctly) flagged as not
> packaged.
> 
> > So maybe we should just always put pyc files in for maximum
> > compatibility across distributions?
> 
> Yeah.
> 
> > Otherwise, if this really makes the build fail for some distributions,
> 
> The CentOS-only .pyc packaging did not cover other distros that required
> it, such as Fedora and BLAG, yes.
> 
> >> Plus, they should be packaged (if at all) in python-ceph, but
> >> definitely not in the main ceph package.
> 
> > They are packaged in python-ceph.
> 
> No, look at the patch.  The ugly work-around to package .pyc files on
> CentOS only was not in python-ceph.

Ok, now I see.

Regards
 Holger