From owner-freebsd-python@freebsd.org Tue Dec 13 19:44:11 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-python@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C18CBC76293 for ; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 19:44:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mva@FreeBSD.org) Received: from smtprelay02.ispgateway.de (smtprelay02.ispgateway.de [80.67.18.44]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8768D18D3 for ; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 19:44:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mva@FreeBSD.org) Received: from [92.230.40.109] (helo=[192.168.35.21]) by smtprelay02.ispgateway.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1cGsNl-0005dG-3v; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 20:04:57 +0100 From: "Marcus von Appen" To: "Vlad K." , freebsd-python@freebsd.org Subject: Re[2]: lang/python3* ports, __pycache__ included Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 19:04:54 +0000 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <9eb517ced907838f7c604427a01d659f@acheronmedia.com> References: <9eb517ced907838f7c604427a01d659f@acheronmedia.com> Reply-To: "Marcus von Appen" User-Agent: eM_Client/7.0.27943.0 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Df-Sender: ZnJlZWJzZEBzeXNmYXVsdC5vcmc= X-BeenThere: freebsd-python@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD-specific Python issues List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 19:44:11 -0000 On 12/13/2016 12:55:40 PM, "Vlad K." wrote: >On 2016-12-13 12:36, Kubilay Kocak wrote: >> >>My main point was that if disk utilisation is something one wants to >>minimise (at deployment), that one would need to be able to turn the >>optimization knob off each time (or system-wide) and that that would=20 >>be >>a handy thing to know and do. >Personally, I'd love if Python could specify a base dir for bytecode=20 >cache, but it seems that's not gonna happen: > >https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0304/ > > >>Said another way, even if we (FreeBSD) de-packaged optimization files >>which we want to do, that that *by itself* that would only save=20 >>package >>repository size and bandwidth, not deployment size. > >But in reality, what kind of gain/loss are we talking about here? I'm=20 >guessing it's pretty insignificant in this day and age, even for=20 >embedded? > Some systems require very strong audit rules, while stuff is run with=20 privileged permissions. In reality, this does not matter that much in most of the cases (read-only mounts), but=20 nevertheless, it'd be a nice thing to have. Cheers Marcus