On Fri, 2005-12-30 at 12:33 -0600, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> 1. Stop compiling .pyo files, entirely (I'm hoping for little argument
> on this).
>
> Rationale: .pyo files are a joke. They aren't optimized in any
> meaningful sense, they just have asserts removed. Examples for several
> non-trivial fil
On Mon, 2006-01-02 at 18:31 +0100, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> > 1. Stop compiling .pyo files, entirely (I'm hoping for little
> > argument on this).
>
> I agree.
>
> > How?: compileall.py:57, -cfile = fullname +
> > (__debug__ and 'c' or 'o') +
Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> 1. Stop compiling .pyo files, entirely (I'm hoping for little
> argument on this).
I agree.
> How?: compileall.py:57, -cfile = fullname +
> (__debug__ and 'c' or 'o') +cfile = fullname + 'c'
This is the wrong solution, though. If Python is
Le dimanche 01 janvier 2006 à 16:14 -0600, Joe Wreschnig a écrit :
> > The real fix for this issue isn't to stop generating the .pyc files. It
> > is to make python not generate any .pyc files at all when running as
> > root.
>
> Well, I would say, not generate any pyc files unless requested,
> re
On Sun, 2006-01-01 at 19:09 +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > 2. Stop compiling .pyc files (this I expect to be contentious), unless a
> > package wants to.
> >
> > Rationale: .pyc files have a minimal gain, and numerous failings.
> >
> > Advantages of .pyc files:
> > * .pyc files make Python im
Le vendredi 30 décembre 2005 à 12:33 -0600, Joe Wreschnig a écrit :
> 1. Stop compiling .pyo files, entirely (I'm hoping for little argument
> on this).
>
> Rationale: .pyo files are a joke. They aren't optimized in any
> meaningful sense, they just have asserts removed. Examples for several
> non
On Fri, Dec 30, 2005 at 10:59:45PM -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote:
> What would you suggest doing about "hybrid" packages which are primarily
> applications, but also want to make their modules available to other
> Python programs? Two examples here are pychecker and epydoc (both
> maintained by m
On Fri, 2005-12-30 at 22:59 -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote:
> > About a month ago Steve Langasek and I discussed the state of Python
> > packages on IRC, in particular the effects of bytecode compilation; the
> > effectiveness (or lack thereof) of it, and how it tightens Pytho
> About a month ago Steve Langasek and I discussed the state of Python
> packages on IRC, in particular the effects of bytecode compilation; the
> effectiveness (or lack thereof) of it, and how it tightens Python
> dependencies. I'd like to propose three changes to how Python modu
Hi,
About a month ago Steve Langasek and I discussed the state of Python
packages on IRC, in particular the effects of bytecode compilation; the
effectiveness (or lack thereof) of it, and how it tightens Python
dependencies. I'd like to propose three changes to how Python modules
are ha
On Thu, Jul 25, 2002 at 10:21:07PM +0200, Florent Rougon wrote:
> Dave Swegen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > install python2.2 + friends on a 486 with 16 meg'o'ram :) Maybe it would
> > be an idea to provide a script that the user can run when he feels the
> > machine isn't needed for anything e
Dave Swegen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not having really followed the discussion, and being faaar too bone-idle
> to actually look it up in the archives, this is my view on it: Shipping
> pre-compiled really isn't an option, as the size increase would be
> unacceptable - not only from a debian a
On Thu, Jul 25, 2002 at 02:41:09PM +0200, Florent Rougon wrote:
> Dave Swegen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Surely the right way to handle this is using debconf in the main python
> > packages, and subsequently any packages check this to see if python
> > scripts should be compiled or not. Or h
Dave Swegen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Surely the right way to handle this is using debconf in the main python
> packages, and subsequently any packages check this to see if python
> scripts should be compiled or not. Or have I missed anything?
You are talking about (compiling the .py in postin
On Thu, Jul 25, 2002 at 01:54:24PM +0200, Bastian Kleineidam wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2002 at 01:05:27PM +0200, Martin Sjögren wrote:
> > I've read the draft python policy, and my packages follow it. There is,
> > however, something that I think is missing. What's the policy on
> > byte-compilation
On Thu, Jul 25, 2002 at 01:05:27PM +0200, Martin Sjögren wrote:
> I've read the draft python policy, and my packages follow it. There is,
> however, something that I think is missing. What's the policy on
> byte-compilation? Should there be both .pyc and .pyo files? Should the
> files be compiled i
On Thu, Jul 25, 2002 at 01:05:27PM +0200, Martin Sjögren wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I've read the draft python policy, and my packages follow it. There is,
> however, something that I think is missing. What's the policy on
> byte-compilation? Should there be both .pyc and .pyo files? Should the
> files b
Hello.
I've read the draft python policy, and my packages follow it. There is,
however, something that I think is missing. What's the policy on
byte-compilation? Should there be both .pyc and .pyo files? Should the
files be compiled in the postinst script or can they be distributed with
the packag
18 matches
Mail list logo
