Nicolas Williams wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 06:42:30PM -0800, Danek Duvall wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 08:41:30PM -0500, Mike Meyer wrote:
>>> In that case, the problem is with your packaging system. If python
>>> isn't supposed to be mucking around in python's library directories,
>>> then who is?
>> Absolutely nothing.  Once a package is installed to a directory under /usr,
>> /usr needs to be treated as read-only, as it very well may be mounted that
>> way.
>>
>>> pyc files are *not* some kind of compiled file you can use like elc or
>>> jar files. They're a caching mechanism used by the python vm/compiler
>>> combo to improve performance.
>> If they're truly cache files, then they should go in a directory guaranteed
>> to be writable, such as something under /var.
> 
> Worse: it has to be writable by the user that runs Python.
> 
> Perhaps we need a /var location for cached compilations and a service to
> do those compilations, either on demand or a priori.

Or we could just "keep it simple" and deliver the pyc files as we are 
now.  All of these solutions sound technically neat, and at the same 
time overly complicated.

The upside to creating these files on the fly would be a slight decrease 
in bandwidth usage, etc.  The downside would be the appearance that all 
Python applications run slower on OpenSolaris (the first time) or always 
(if run from the LiveCD).  The other downside would be that OpenSolaris 
would be the only one that does it differently than "everyone else" (as 
far as I know).

I'd rather just deal with the timestamp in the pyc files and be done 
with it.

-- 
Shawn Walker
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss

Reply via email to