Éric Araujo <mer...@netwok.org> added the comment: Okay, I think it’s a valuable use case.
(Out of curiosity, why don’t you want byte-compiled files on your system? It speeds up imports, and problems due to the presence of stray pyc files when the py is deleted are gone in 3.2+. Maybe you have custom tools to byte-compile, like Debian?) Do you have any opinion about my renaming suggestion? Without renaming, we’d have that: build --byte-compile --no-byte-compile --optimize-bytecode=[012] build_py --compile --no-compile --optimize=[012] If we want to use the same name and make the names clearer, we could have: build(_py) --compile-pyc --no-compile-pyc --compile-pyo=[012] ---------- title: packaging: build command should accept --compile, --no-compile and --optimize options -> packaging: build command should have options to control byte-compilation _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue13400> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
