Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 21:51:29 +0000 From: "Marcus von Appen" <mva@FreeBSD.org> To: "Kyle Evans" <kevans91@ksu.edu>, python@freebsd.org Subject: Re: lang/python3* ports, __pycache__ included Message-ID: <ema74d97cd-d111-4740-909d-419a4d12c8a6@hora> In-Reply-To: <CACNAnaEueRdkEuuf9MmZwqqaz8HB6hSW14a_VmqZ9%2B8ub3235g@mail.gmail.com> References: <CACNAnaEueRdkEuuf9MmZwqqaz8HB6hSW14a_VmqZ9%2B8ub3235g@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi Kyle, On 12/12/2016 7:54:18 PM, "Kyle Evans" <kevans91@ksu.edu> wrote: >Hello! > >Out of curiosity, is there a specific reason that the lang/python3* >ports all include various __pycache__ bits while these were not >present, at least, in lang/python27? this is a python3 specific change in how python deals with optimized=20 bytecode files. We ship .pyc/.pyo files for python2 ports and __pycache__ bits for=20 python3, so there is no change in packaging behaviour except from "sticking to the=20 default". > >I ask because this seems to be a decent amount of fat added to the >resulting packages that I'd rather not have in the environments of >some personal applications I am developing, and I don't particularly >see a need that they these directories need to stick around. Space is, >unfortunately, an issue that I worry about. =3D) Few years ago, we already had an idea about that. You can read it at https://wiki.freebsd.org/Python/CompiledPackages. If space is a major=20 concern for you (but a small drawback in runtime performance is not), let us=20 know, so we put it up on the agenda (again). Cheers Marcus
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?ema74d97cd-d111-4740-909d-419a4d12c8a6>