➜

This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author brett.cannon
Recipients Alexandru Ardelean, Ray Donnelly, barry, benjamin.peterson, bmwiedemann, brett.cannon, dstufft, eric.araujo, eric.smith, vstinner, yan12125
Date 2018-01-12.19:22:13
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
2018-01-12 19:22:13brett.cannonsetrecipients: + brett.cannon, barry, vstinner, eric.smith, benjamin.peterson, eric.araujo, dstufft, yan12125, bmwiedemann, Alexandru Ardelean, Ray Donnelly
2018-01-12 19:22:13brett.cannonsetmessageid: <1515784933.7.0.467229070634.issue29708@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2018-01-12 19:22:13brett.cannonlinkissue29708 messages
2018-01-12 19:22:13brett.cannoncreate