On Thu, Sep 7, 2017, at 14:54, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > On Thu, 07 Sep 2017 14:32:19 -0700 > Benjamin Peterson <benja...@python.org> wrote: > > > > > > Not sure how common that situation is (certainly the source tree wasn't > > > read-only when you checked it out or untar'ed it), but isn't it easily > > > circumvented by copying the source tree before building? > > > > Well, yes, in these kind of "batch" build situations, copying is > > probably fine. However, I want to be able to have pyc determinism even > > when developing. Copying the entire source every time I change something > > isn't a nice. > > Hmm... Are you developing from a read-only source tree?
No, but the build system is building from one (at least conceptually). > > > The larger point is that while the SOURCE_EPOCH patch will likely work > > for Linux distributions, I'm interested in being able to have > > deterministic pycs in "normal" Python development workflows. > > That's an interesting idea, but is there a concrete motivation or is it > platonical? After all, if you're changing something in the source tree > it's expected that the overall "signature" of the build will be > modified too. Yes, I have used Bazel to build pycs. Having pycs be deterministic allows interesting build system optimizations like Bazel distributed caching to work well for Python. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com