Message309870
| Author |
brett.cannon |
| Recipients |
Alexandru Ardelean, Ray Donnelly, barry, benjamin.peterson, bmwiedemann, brett.cannon, dstufft, eric.araujo, eric.smith, vstinner, yan12125 |
| Date |
2018年01月12日.19:22:13 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1515784933.7.0.467229070634.issue29708@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
A disagreement has popped up over what the ideal solution is on the PR currently connected to this issue. I'm having the folks involved switch it over to here.
IMO I think py_compile can respect SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH and just blindly use it for creating .pyc files. That way builds are reproducible. Yes, it will quite possibly lead to those .pyc files being regenerated the instant Python starts running, but SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is entirely about builds, not runtimes. Plus .pyc files are just optimizations and so it is not critical they not be regenerated again later. |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2018年01月12日 19:22:13 | brett.cannon | set | recipients:
+ brett.cannon, barry, vstinner, eric.smith, benjamin.peterson, eric.araujo, dstufft, yan12125, bmwiedemann, Alexandru Ardelean, Ray Donnelly |
| 2018年01月12日 19:22:13 | brett.cannon | set | messageid: <1515784933.7.0.467229070634.issue29708@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2018年01月12日 19:22:13 | brett.cannon | link | issue29708 messages |
| 2018年01月12日 19:22:13 | brett.cannon | create |
|