[Infrastructures] make install only?

[Steve Traugott]

Hi Bennett!

On Sun, Oct 09, 2005 at 05:27:35PM +0000, Bennett Todd wrote:
> 2005-10-08T15:42:31 G. Roderick Singleton:
> > I wnated to evaluate isconf_4 but ran into make install as the only
> > option. Not being a python expert, I cannot find a way to configure
> > without the install and there is no uninstall so I need some guidence.
> 
> I'm not a python expert either, but I needed to package isconf to
> deploy it at work; that involves compiling it one place, doing the
> make install to a second (in this case, python setup.py install),
> and actually running it from a third. What's more, work standards
> strictly prohibit an installed package making any reference to the
> build or install-staging areas.
> 
> I ended up doing the python setup.py install, then clobbering the
> pyc files, and editing the isconf script to add the isconf lib dir
> to the search path.
> 
> Python has not impressed me as a language for deliving
> enterprise-quality applications, so far.

I have to think we're just doing something wrong -- I'm sure the .pyc
files should be able to be treated like java bytecode, for instance,
and kept around; we should be able to influence the content of the
embedded source file path.  I'll poke around more on the various
python mailing lists, and see what I can come up with.

Does anyone here happen to know anything about installing precompiled
python modules in a depot or gnu stow-like environment, when you
abolutely positively don't want the interpreter to try to stat(), let
alone recompile, the original .py file at startup?

Steve
-- 
Stephen G. Traugott  (KG6HDQ)
UNIX/Linux Infrastructure Architect, TerraLuna LLC
stevegt@TerraLuna.Org 
http://www.stevegt.com -- http://Infrastructures.Org