On 07/26/2011 11:19 AM, Eldon Ziegler wrote:
Is there a way to have the Python processor look only for bytecode
files, not .py files? We are seeing huge numbers of Linux audit messages
on production system on which only bytecode files are stored. The audit
subsystem is recording each open failure
Am 29.07.2011 14:51 schrieb John Roth:
Sorry. I thought what you posted was from the OP. I guess I don't
really expect someone to post a completely irrelevant trace in a
thread started by someone who has a problem.
In what way do you find the trace irrelevant? It clearly shows that it
is not
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 8:51 AM, John Roth wrote:
> Sorry. I thought what you posted was from the OP. I guess I don't
> really expect someone to post a completely irrelevant trace in a
> thread started by someone who has a problem.
I'm not sure why you would think that that post was by the origin
John Roth wrote:
ACK. That is exactly what I wanted to show. (With the difference that
this is probably nt the bash, but the linux loader trying to link a .so,
but for the problem, it doesn't make any difference.)
Sorry. I thought what you posted was from the OP. I guess I don't
really expect s
On Jul 27, 8:56 am, Thomas Rachel wrote:
> Am 27.07.2011 14:18 schrieb John Roth:
>
> > Two comments. First, your trace isn't showing attempts to open .py
> > files, it's showing attempts to open the Curses library in the bash
> > directory.
>
> Of course. My goal was to show that the OP's "proble
Christian Heimes wrote:
Now the test.py has the same mtime as test.pyc and Python won't
recompile the .pyc file from the .py file as long as the magic header
(168686339) is correct.
~very cool.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Am 27.07.2011 14:18 schrieb John Roth:
Two comments. First, your trace isn't showing attempts to open .py
files, it's showing attempts to open the Curses library in the bash
directory.
Of course. My goal was to show that the OP's "problem" is not a python
one, but occurs all over several prog
On Jul 27, 1:10 am, Thomas Rachel wrote:
> Am 26.07.2011 17:19 schrieb Eldon Ziegler:
>
> > Is there a way to have the Python processor look only for bytecode
> > files, not .py files? We are seeing huge numbers of Linux audit messages
> > on production system on which only bytecode files are stor
Am 27.07.2011 03:32, schrieb harrismh777:
> Christian Heimes wrote:
>> The first four bytes of a pyc file contain the magic header. It must
>> match the magic of the current Python version. The next four bytes
>> contain the pyc_mtime. It must match the mtime of the corresponding .py
>> files as re
Am 26.07.2011 17:19 schrieb Eldon Ziegler:
Is there a way to have the Python processor look only for bytecode
files, not .py files? We are seeing huge numbers of Linux audit messages
on production system on which only bytecode files are stored. The audit
subsystem is recording each open failure.
Christian Heimes wrote:
The first four bytes of a pyc file contain the magic header. It must
match the magic of the current Python version. The next four bytes
contain the pyc_mtime. It must match the mtime of the corresponding .py
files as returned by fstat().st_mtime. If the magic doesn't match
Am 26.07.2011 23:20, schrieb Eldon Ziegler:
> That seemed like a good idea but the .py file was complied even though
> it was dated 2001-01-01 00:00:00. Python must be checking something
> beside the date.
The first four bytes of a pyc file contain the magic header. It must
match the magic of the
On 7/26/2011 3:32 PM, Dan Stromberg wrote:
Another possibility: You could probably create a bunch of zero-length
.py's that are older than the corresponding .pyc's.
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 8:19 AM, Eldon Ziegler mailto:eld...@atlanticdb.com>> wrote:
Is there a way to have the Python proces
That seemed like a good idea but the .py file was complied even though
it was dated 2001-01-01 00:00:00. Python must be checking something
beside the date.
On Tue, 2011-07-26 at 12:32 -0700, Dan Stromberg wrote:
>
> Another possibility: You could probably create a bunch of
> zero-length .py's th
Another possibility: You could probably create a bunch of zero-length .py's
that are older than the corresponding .pyc's.
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 8:19 AM, Eldon Ziegler wrote:
> Is there a way to have the Python processor look only for bytecode
> files, not .py files? We are seeing huge numbers o
*Maybe* you can cook something with import hooks (see PEP 302). However I think
the easier option will be to distribute the .py files as well.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 07/26/2011 11:19 AM, Eldon Ziegler wrote:
Is there a way to have the Python processor look only for bytecode
files, not .py files? We are seeing huge numbers of Linux audit messages
on production system on which only bytecode files are stored. The audit
subsystem is recording each open failure
Is there a way to have the Python processor look only for bytecode
files, not .py files? We are seeing huge numbers of Linux audit messages
on production system on which only bytecode files are stored. The audit
subsystem is recording each open failure.
Thanks,
Eldon Ziegler
--
http://mail.pyth
18 matches
Mail list logo
