On 2015-Jan-24 22:03:23 -0500, Garrett Wollman <woll...@bimajority.org> wrote: ><<On Sun, 25 Jan 2015 02:47:12 +0100, Dag-Erling Smørgrav <d...@des.no> said: >> These are Pyhon bytecode files. They are automatically regenerated if >> you have write access to them and Python thinks they are stale when it >> tries to load them. Apparently, Python's definition of "stale" is >> slightly more complex than just comparing timestamps; they are one of >> the reasons why Baptiste gave up reproducible package builds. > >That's unfortunate. Perhaps either Python can be trained to write >updated copies somewhere else?
If Python isn't going to use the .pyc files we ship (because it thinks they are out of date), we might as well not ship them. > Or maybe we can generate them >at package installation rather than shipping pregenerated versions? My feeling is that we should only distribute .py files and build the .pyc files at package install time. As far as I can see, this is what Ubuntu and Debian (the two Linux distros I have ready access to) do. >(Would slow down builds of dependent packages, but those are the >breaks.) It would be interesting to know how big an impact this is. -- Peter Jeremy
pgpOFZRKGD3uH.pgp
Description: PGP signature
