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