Oh. I just realised that if you exclude .py, you'll need to include both
.pyc and .pyo, which is actually quite tricky to manage. So perhaps not
a good idea.
Jamie
On 26/02/2016 10:10 PM, Noelia wrote:
Just a question. I vote for consistancy, wether or not Py files are included.
But, if they are excluded, should be included pyc and pyw files?
Thanks.
El 26/02/2016 a las 13:01, James Teh escribió:
Personally, I'd drop the source (including .py files) from the packages.----------------------------------------------------------------
If these were compiled binaries, we wouldn't be bundling the source with
the binaries. Also, if people want to learn about development by
example, it's not unreasonable to expect them to learn about fetching
the source. That's what they'd have to do in fully compiled projects.
That said, I realise this viewpoint is probably going to be unpopular,
and for add-ons, I don't care strongly enough to push it.
For consistency, if you're going to include .py files, you may as well
include .po and .md as well.
Jamie
On 26/02/2016 9:45 PM, Joseph Lee wrote:
Hi,
Hmmm, perhaps an optional command-line switch (invoked by release
managers)
might be useful for cases where excluding .po and .md files would be
useful
(for example, if the space is tight). Without this command-line switch
specified, add-on bundles would include everything like what we have now.
Mick or Jamie (and others), any thoughts on this?
Cheers,
Joseph
-----Original Message-----
From: nvda-addons-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:nvda-addons-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Noelia
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 3:35 AM
To: nvda-addons@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [nvda-addons] Re: Proposal: excluding .po and .md files when
building add-on packages
I disagree.
If Python files are not excluded, I think that po and md files
shouldn't be
excluded for consistancy.
NVDA excludes the source code in binaries, but add-ons are smaller and
the
source code allows modifications and learning about development.
Furthermore, if some files are excluded, perhaps detailed documentation
about building add-ons from source is required, and perhaps the readme of
add-on template is not enough.
I remember a similar discussion time ago.
Thanks.
El 26/02/2016 a las 12:16, Joseph Lee escribió:
Hi all,----------------------------------------------------------------
When NVDA is compiled, various nvda.po files are excluded, leaving
only .mo files. Same applies to readme - .t2t files are excluded,
leaving .html files. This results in significant disk space savings.
I’d like to propose that a modification to addonTemplate/sconstruct be
made to exclude .po and .md files starting with our upcoming
spring/fall quarterly maintenance releases. Thanks.
Cheers,
Joseph
NVDA add-ons: A list to discuss add-on code enhancements and for
reporting
bugs.
Community addons are available from: http://addons.nvda-project.org To
send
a message to the list: nvda-addons@xxxxxxxxxxxxx To change your list
settings/unsubscribe: //www.freelists.org/list/nvda-addons
To contact list moderators: nvda-addons-moderators@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
----------------------------------------------------------------
NVDA add-ons: A list to discuss add-on code enhancements and for
reporting bugs.
Community addons are available from: http://addons.nvda-project.org
To send a message to the list: nvda-addons@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To change your list settings/unsubscribe:
//www.freelists.org/list/nvda-addons
To contact list moderators: nvda-addons-moderators@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
NVDA add-ons: A list to discuss add-on code enhancements and for reporting bugs.
Community addons are available from: http://addons.nvda-project.org
To send a message to the list: nvda-addons@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To change your list settings/unsubscribe: //www.freelists.org/list/nvda-addons
To contact list moderators: nvda-addons-moderators@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
