From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.windriver.com (mail1.windriver.com [147.11.146.13]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53728728AC for ; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 09:32:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ALA-HCB.corp.ad.wrs.com (ala-hcb.corp.ad.wrs.com [147.11.189.41]) by mail1.windriver.com (8.14.9/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t079WBO8009413 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 7 Jan 2015 01:32:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from [128.224.162.174] (128.224.162.174) by ALA-HCB.corp.ad.wrs.com (147.11.189.41) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.174.1; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 01:32:11 -0800 Message-ID: <54ACFD1A.5000606@windriver.com> Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 17:32:10 +0800 From: Robert Yang User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mike Looijmans , References: <1420592855-20473-1-git-send-email-liezhi.yang@windriver.com> <1420618033.25779.56.camel@linuxfoundation.org> <54ACFB02.5060209@topic.nl> In-Reply-To: <54ACFB02.5060209@topic.nl> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] package.bbclass: omit .pyc and .pyo file X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 09:32:23 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 01/07/2015 05:23 PM, Mike Looijmans wrote: > On 01/07/2015 09:07 AM, Richard Purdie wrote: >> On Tue, 2015-01-06 at 17:07 -0800, Robert Yang wrote: >>> We should not ship .pyc or .pyo file, but there are a few packages >>> ship .pyc, should we: >> >> Why should we not ship them? Doesn't python create these at runtime if >> they're not present? What happens on a read only filesystem? > > You definitely SHOULD ship the .pyc files. If they don't exist, the interpreter > is forced to re-compile the .py source, and will attempt to write the result to > the filesystem. It won't cause harm, it won't fail, but it's very inefficient. > It's better to let the host do the py->pyc conversion anyway. AFAIK, the .pyc is not version compatible, the .pyc created with the build host's python may not work with the target python. // Robert > > The opposite works just fine: You can omit the .py files and ship only .pyc > files. We do that on settopboxes that use Python for the GUI, this saves several > megabytes of flash space. > To accomplish that, we put the .py files into a $PN-src package. > > There has been general agreement that .pyo files are utterly pointless. > >> I'm sure we've had issues raised by someone with a read only filesystem >> before FWIW. >> >> I agree there is probably an issue here but deleting them may not be the >> best option. I'm open to ideas though. > > My idea would be to standardize on shipping ONLY compiled files, and put the > source .py files into a separate package named $PN-src by default. There is no > need to install megabytes of python source files that neither users nor the > interpreter will ever read. > > > > Met vriendelijke groet / kind regards, > > Mike Looijmans > System Expert > > > TOPIC Embedded Systems > Eindhovenseweg 32-C, NL-5683 KH Best > Postbus 440, NL-5680 AK Best > Telefoon: (+31) (0) 499 33 69 79 > Telefax: (+31) (0) 499 33 69 70 > E-mail: mike.looijmans@topic.nl > Website: www.topic.nl > > Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail > > Topic zoekt gedreven (embedded) software specialisten! > http://topic.nl/vacatures/topic-zoekt-software-engineers/ >