Brett Cannon added the comment: On Mar 12, 2014 6:04 PM, "Nick Coghlan" <rep...@bugs.python.org> wrote: > > > Nick Coghlan added the comment: > > I'm not sure Brett's plan is such a great idea. If you look at the file > attributes in my demo above, they include a leading path element (based on > the executable location), so it *is* possible to use the pkgutil data > access APIs sensibly from a frozen module (and even when there's no path > component, I believe the recommended way of invoking pkgutil would fall > back to the current directory).
But the fact that has any meaning is dumb luck. Why would anyone but CPython partially freeze a package? If you go to the trouble to freeze a module in a package you are probably going to freeze it all, not just a subset like we do. > > So I don't think we should decide what to do without first comparing the > behaviour of frozen pkgutil.get_data dependent code between 3.3 and 3.4. I'm not seeing a use-case here. If you're freezing your code you are typically doing it to avoid shipping files or protecting code. If you're doing it to avoid files then you won't want to have data files lying around either. And if you are doing it to hide code then you are probably not going to want your data files exposed as that could also be valuable IP. And that path being absolute is a 3.4 thing so there is not backwards-compatibility there. > > ---------- > > _______________________________________ > Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> > <http://bugs.python.org/issue20884> > _______________________________________ ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue20884> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
