On 8 December 2015 at 07:08, Joe Brockmeier <j...@redhat.com> wrote: > So - if we're talking about doing this for the Fedora release(s) we > should probably make sure to have the cloud list in the discussion as well. > > One question, apologies if it's uninformed - if we did this, is there > the possibility of running into bugs that other users of the same > packages would not hit?
There is - the rest of the thread goes into more details. > I'd be concerned that if we're stripping something out specifically for > Atomic after a build step that we might create some hard-to-troubleshoot > issues for packagers who maintain any/all of the Python packages in > question. I'm all for slimming down the Atomic images, but preferably in > a way where we're helping to slim down things overall. (Or maybe this > wouldn't be an issue?) There's one trick we discussed that I think is actually fairly safe: using hard links to share the same set of compiled files for normal execution and -O, rather than having two copies. Assuming the "-O" files are used, then any asserts and "if __debug__:" blocks in the system provided libraries would get skipped even in the non-optimised case. For -OO, I think we should recommend that anyone considering using -OO for a Python app is likely to the point where they may also want to consider rolling their own base container. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
