On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 5:36 AM, Matej Stuchlik <mstuc...@redhat.com> wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "drago01" <drag...@gmail.com> > > To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" < > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 11:20:27 AM > > Subject: Re: Fedora 23 cloud image (and, for that matter, minimal > anything) bloat > > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 11:07 AM, Matej Stuchlik <mstuc...@redhat.com> > wrote: > > > [...] > > > When it comes to python3, one way to shave off ~9MiB from > python3-libs, and > > > possibly quite a bit more overall, would be to not install both > optimized > > > and > > > unoptimized bytecode, as we do now, but just the unoptimized one (the > > > performance > > > hit should be very small). > > > > How small is "very small" ? Have you measured it? > > I don't think 9MB of disk space is worth taking a performance hit for ... > > The only difference between unoptimized and "optimized" bytecode should be > that > the latter is missing all docstrings, has disable asserts and sets > __debug__ to False, > I can't imagine this being significant, performance wise. > > That said I do not plan on doing this before I measure the performance > difference and > discuss it on python-sig and python-linux. > > Also note that it's possibly not just 9MB. For instance python3-boto, also > on this list, would > save 4.7MB, python3-pip 2.9MB. In general most python packages could go > down in size by ~20-30%. > > Matt > > However, this approach would break with Python 3.5 (where pyo data is merged into *.pyc data), so I would consider it an ill-advised approach anyway. It may work for F23, but it won't work for F24, and then we'd be back to square one again. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
