On 02.11.19 04:22, Paul Wise wrote:
Hi all,
I run adequate on my system, which means I notice when Python module
packages don't bytecompile when they are installed. So far I've just
been ignoring the warnings that adequate prints.
https://salsa.debian.org/debian/adequate
In addition I noticed:
* some Python modules on my system weren't bytecompiled but did
bytecompile when I reinstalled them (blinker for example)
* many of the Python modules on my system don't bytecompile their test
directories (django for example)
* relatively few packages I have installed don't bytecompile when I
ignore test paths (lib2to3, tk, uno, distutils)
Some questions:
Should all module packages bytecompile?
At this point I'd ignore any Python2 related package, and concentrate on Python3
stuff only.
Should all module packages bytecompile all their directories?
What are the downsides when module packages don't bytecompile?
What are the downsides when module packages do bytecompile?
Byte compilation is an optimization, speeding up a program start if
byte-compiled files are ready. Packages are smaller without bc, take a bit
longer to install. I think nobody is asking the question if .py files should be
dropped in favor of .pyc files.
Do we need a lintian complaint about this issue?
Do we need any improvements in how module packages bytecompile?
For example using triggers instead of postinst scriptlets.
Any other thoughts?
I'd say, there are currently more pressing issues than that, like the Python2
removal, or the introduction of Python 3.8. 3.8 also offers a central directory
for bc files, so that's maybe another thing to look at, but not a priority now
from my point of view.
Matthias
