From: Stuart Henderson Subject: Re: update games/wesnoth To: Fabien ROMANO Cc: ports@openbsd.org Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 08:33:54 +0100 On 2024/06/20 20:29, Fabien ROMANO wrote: > On 20/06/2024 12:35, Stuart Henderson wrote: > > No pyc files for those please. They are scripts for running separately > > ("#!/usr/bin/env python3" lines and executable). pyc files are just used > > for files which are imported as Python modules (usually in a directory > > tree with __init__.py files). > > I'm confused, was thinking it is used for any .py files to speed up execution on > next run (not only module import). Still there are modules bundled in those tools. > I have no idea what those tools are used for and the port does not have direct > depends on python so, in this case, performance do not matter I guess. Performance is part of it, the other part is that we don't want software from packages to write pyc files to system directories if they're run as a user with write permissions on the relevant dirs. https://peps.python.org/pep-3147/#flow-chart only talks about writing these when you "import foo" and it imports from foo.py and when I've tried running scripts directly from a writable dir, the pycache dir and pyc-files do not get created. You can check yourself by making the dir world-writable (or changing ownership) and running the program. > > > > portcheck's checks are not particularly sophisticated. > > > Well, sometimes it is better to keep it stupid. > I guess this one is better as is (from my pov ksh isn't elegant neither easy). > > Perhapsd a knob like PORTROACH could be added to mute some checks on purpose ? > > # some tools provided are written in python but not needed to run the game > PORTCHECK_DISABLE = python that's not the correct reason for this case. > How many knobs, is it only a few false negative checks ... don't know. > Even a simple knob like this could be tricky to implement in ksh. Please let's not make portcheck even more complicated.