On samedi, 25 mars 2017 18.51:33 h CEST Bruno Friedmann wrote:
See [1] as reference During build with the new singlespec way I'm getting warning about
python3-htmlmin.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/ htmlmin/__pycache__/decorator.cpython-36.opt-1.pyc /usr/lib/python3.6/site- packages/htmlmin/__pycache__/decorator.cpython-36.pyc
Why did we have now two kinds of pyc being exactly the same file ? Is there a bug in one of the python macros ?
Thanks for the potential explanation.
[1] https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/ home:bruno_friedmann:branches:devel:languages:python3/python3-htmlmin
Following https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0488/#id25 To eliminate the ambiguity that PYO files present, this PEP proposes eliminating the concept of PYO files and their accompanying .pyo file extension. To allow for the optimization level to be unambiguous as well as to avoid having to regenerate optimized bytecode files needlessly in the __pycache__ directory, the optimization level used to generate the bytecode file will be incorporated into the bytecode file name. When no optimization level is specified, the pre-PEP .pyc file name will be used (i.e., no optimization level will be specified in the file name). For example, a source file named foo.py in CPython 3.5 could have the following bytecode files based on the interpreter's optimization level (none, -O , and -OO ): 0: foo.cpython-35.pyc (i.e., no change) 1: foo.cpython-35.opt-1.pyc 2: foo.cpython-35.opt-2.pyc It seems we shouldn't continue to have both pyc. -- Bruno Friedmann Ioda-Net Sàrl www.ioda-net.ch Bareos Partner, openSUSE Member, fsfe fellowship GPG KEY : D5C9B751C4653227 irc: tigerfoot -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org