That seemed like a good idea but the .py file was complied even though it was dated 2001-01-01 00:00:00. Python must be checking something beside the date.
On Tue, 2011-07-26 at 12:32 -0700, Dan Stromberg wrote: > > Another possibility: You could probably create a bunch of > zero-length .py's that are older than the corresponding .pyc's. > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 8:19 AM, Eldon Ziegler <eld...@atlanticdb.com> > wrote: > Is there a way to have the Python processor look only for > bytecode > files, not .py files? We are seeing huge numbers of Linux > audit messages > on production system on which only bytecode files are stored. > The audit > subsystem is recording each open failure. > > Thanks, > Eldon Ziegler > > > -- > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list > -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list