Daniel J Walsh <dwa...@redhat.com> writes: > On 12/03/2015 06:49 AM, Fabian Deutsch wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 12:25 PM, Giuseppe Scrivano <gscri...@redhat.com> >> wrote: >>> Fabian Deutsch <fdeut...@redhat.com> writes: >>> >>>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Giuseppe Scrivano <gscri...@redhat.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>>> The removal caused some trouble: >>>>>> - removing informations from drawbacks >>>>>> - Making debugging - testing changes - very cumbersome >>>>>> - Breaks "plugin" mechanisms of a surprising large number of tools >>>>>> >>>>>> In our next release we will finally re-introduce .py files again: >>>>>> Bug 1233106 - [RFE] Remove all kernel, firmware, and .py file >>>>>> blacklisting >>>>>> >>>>>> I'd suggest to consider and not underestimate these factors. >>>>> thanks for the feedbacks. Were .pyc files used instead of the .py >>>>> version in oVirt? >>>> We dropped .py and .pyc files - so the .pyo files were kept. >>>> >>>>> IIUIC, pyc files maintain the same information as the >>>>> original source file, while .pyo files are a optimized version that has >>>>> not all the original content. Using the optimized version, I could >>>>> strip 55 MB of space from the Fedora Atomic image, if I use .pyc then >>>>> the reduction is only 27 MB. >>>> What about keeping .py and .pyo, and just drop .pyc? >>> That could be an option. The image size I got keeping .py and .pyo is >>> 15 MB smaller than the original one. >> Nice. Not as much as 55MB, but still a win. >> >> - fabian >> > Will this work on an SELinux system? Will python attempt to create the > pyc files, when the code is executed? > SELinux would stop a confined domain from writing to /usr of course, but > might generate AVC's. If the file system > is read/only then it would be a matter of whether the SELinux checks > happen first or second.
that should not be an issue, the .pyo files will be renamed to .pyc so Python will see the same set of files as now. Giuseppe
