Am 19.02.2011 14:29, schrieb Nick Coghlan: > On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 11:14 PM, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote: >> On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 23:07:17 +1000 >> Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> While this is definitely untidy, it doesn't strike me as a release >>> blocker. More of a "fix it in 3.2.1", since the status quo will >>> *work*, it just means the precompiled file will be ignored on first >>> execution with newer Python versions. >> >> Are you sure? If the package gets installed in a root-writable-only >> directory, later execution cannot create the right pyc files. > > Worst case, it will run from the source file. It may even use the > legacy .pyc file in the case where it can't write to __pycache__ (I > don't remember how that particular subtlety of PEP 3147 played out). > Certainly not ideal from a performance point of view, but also not > difficult to workaround once discovered. > >> This certainly looks like a critical issue (hopefully not release >> blocker). > > As a performance problem that only arises in some situations when > using distutils to do bulk compilation, and with running "compileall" > as root available as a relatively straightforward workaround, I > personally think it can wait until 3.2.1. > > So I'd agree with the critical-but-not-a-release-blocker assessment, > but it's ultimately Georg's call.
Given that we are only hours from the final, I'm quite unwilling to call this a blocker, seeing that running from the .py file works well (and I'm not really of Antoine's opinion that that is such a big performance hit). BTW, I haven't seen an issue yet. Georg _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
