On 02.11.19 04:22, Paul Wise wrote:
Hi all,
I run adequate on my system, which means I notice when Python module
packages don't bytecompile when they are installed. So far I've just
been ignoring the warnings that adequate prints.
https://salsa.debian.org/debian/adequate
In addition I noticed:
* some Python modules on my system weren't bytecompiled but did
bytecompile when I reinstalled them (blinker for example)
* many of the Python modules on my system don't bytecompile their test
directories (django for example)
* relatively few packages I have installed don't bytecompile when I
ignore test paths (lib2to3, tk, uno, distutils)
Some questions:
Should all module packages bytecompile?
At this point I'd ignore any Python2 related package, and concentrate on Python3 stuff only.
Should all module packages bytecompile all their directories? What are the downsides when module packages don't bytecompile? What are the downsides when module packages do bytecompile?
Byte compilation is an optimization, speeding up a program start if byte-compiled files are ready. Packages are smaller without bc, take a bit longer to install. I think nobody is asking the question if .py files should be dropped in favor of .pyc files.
Do we need a lintian complaint about this issue? Do we need any improvements in how module packages bytecompile? For example using triggers instead of postinst scriptlets. Any other thoughts?
I'd say, there are currently more pressing issues than that, like the Python2 removal, or the introduction of Python 3.8. 3.8 also offers a central directory for bc files, so that's maybe another thing to look at, but not a priority now from my point of view.
Matthias