Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> writes: > 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.
thinking more of it: as the trick is quite generic and not as aggressive as my first proposed patch which stripped all the source code, shouldn't be -OO used in any case where the source code is available as well and not only for Atomic? Regards, Giuseppe
