Marko Rauhamaa wrote: > Dan Stromberg <drsali...@gmail.com>: > >> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 4:47 AM, Steven D'Aprano >>> Yes. Distribute the pyc files only. >> >> Yes, this is the way it's usually done. > > Has the .pyc file format stabilized? A decade ago, my employer shipped > an application as .pyc files but had to ship the matching CPython binary > with it.
There is no promise that Python byte code or the format of .pyc files will be stable across minor releases. However, PEP 6 states that bugfix releases should have stable .pyc files. http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0006/ So, you ought to expect that .pyc files will change when any of the following differs: - the hardware (e.g. 32- versus 64-bit, or ARM versus x86 processor); - the Python implementation (e.g. Stackless versus CPython); - the minor or major version number (e.g. 2.6 to 2.7, or 2.x to 3.x); but you can expect the .pyc files to remain compatible for: - the operating system (e.g. Windows, Mac, Linux); - bug-release versions (e.g. 2.7.1 to 2.7.2). Of course, you can distribute the Python executable, but it may be easier to just distribute a separate .pyc file for each minor release you wish to support. Here are some comments from one of the senior core developers: http://www.curiousefficiency.org/posts/2011/04/benefits-and-limitations-of-pyc-only.html -- Steven -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
