On Fri, 25 Sep 2015, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 10:10:40AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Also, you might consider to ship the precompiled bytecode just optionally, using recommends.
On contrary, if you insist on shipping the bytecode, why you don't drop the .py files? I see a lot of duplication all around python packages ....
Wait, we can do that? Why don't we?
Everything I see in online discussion is centered on, basically, transparency. But we wouldn't be doing it for obfuscation. The srpms would still be there, and for that matter we could ship the .py files in a subpackage.
It's nice to be able to edit the .py for testing without going through hoops or building/installing rpms.
It's also nice to be able to read the .py code. That is one reason people use script languages :P
Paul