On Friday, October 5, 2018 10:44:53 AM CEST Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
On 2018-10-05T10:41:22, Alberto Planas Dominguez <aplanas@suse.de> wrote:
I would definitively not do that, as the traceback will lack context. Imagine supporting a system that fails without pointing the source code that generate the error. In my experience having the pys makes the debugging experience a lot better.
That's what debug{info,source} are for. We obviously need a way to translate the traceback from a system where those weren't installed at the time of the trace, but that's not different from any other support incident.
Uhmm sure it is. Another user commented that a pyc only distribution will require the change of the pyc name schema and location. So for each python package we have the three subpackages, two of the duplicating the pyc information, and only to have the the traceback info. And this is only if we make the two pyc packages co-installables, as in other case the user needs to replace one package for another. In every debugging session you will find that updating the py, sometimes will not be reflected on the expected output, until you realized that you are still executing the old pyc, and you need to manually remove it. But now you have two pyc candidates to remove. This scenario scares me a lot : )) -- SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Dilip Upmanyu, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org