On Fri, 17 Feb 2017, Klaus Kaempf wrote:
* Bernhard M. Wiedemann <bernhardout@lsmod.de> [Feb 17. 2017 06:33]:
But why do we have to ship .pyc files as part of our binary rpms?
I'd rather ask why we have to ship *source code* (.py files) as part of our binary rpms ?
They waste much more space since .py files usually include full documentation.
https://hackweek.suse.com/15/projects/1244 showed that e.g. for Salt and its dependencies, stripping the source almost halved(!) the package size. From ~33 to ~18 MB.
From looking at package rebuilds I do remember seeing changing python
OTOH I remember .pyc files are not 100% portable across python versions. I really wonder why there's not some /var/cache/python-X.Y.Z where .pyc files are created and cached on-demand (and that cache configurable to not exist). Debian compiles to .pyc at install time IIRC and re-compiles them eventually on python package upgrates. triggering all -python packages to be rebuilt (when ideally when just shipping .py files no build would be involved). Richard. -- Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de> SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nuernberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org