Steven D'Aprano <steve at pearwood.info> writes: > Personally, I can't imagine ever wanting to ship a .pyc module without > the .py, but since Python already gives people the opportunity to shoot > themselves in the foot, meh, we're all adults here. Not sure I've seen it mentioned in this thread, but for myself, I've certainly used (indirectly) such a distribution many times when packaging applications with py2exe for installation on Windows clients. That puts all the pyc files into a single support zip file from which the application runs. That seems a perfectly useful use case, and not due to any issues with security/obfuscation. The matching interpreter is being packaged with the application, so there's no version worries with the pyc. The files are internal to a zip, so why complicate things with recompiling and writing locally on the user's machine, particularly when on newer versions of Windows the installation directory might not be writable anyway. As long as executing from pyc files continues to work, presumably py2exe can be updated to collect those files from any new cache location during the build process. But I do think it's useful to continue to support executing them directly outside of any new cache location, which it sounds like is the direction being taken. -- David
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4