On Thu, Sep 7, 2017, at 14:54, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Thu, 07 Sep 2017 14:32:19 -0700 Benjamin Peterson <benjamin@python.org> wrote:
Not sure how common that situation is (certainly the source tree wasn't read-only when you checked it out or untar'ed it), but isn't it easily circumvented by copying the source tree before building?
Well, yes, in these kind of "batch" build situations, copying is probably fine. However, I want to be able to have pyc determinism even when developing. Copying the entire source every time I change something isn't a nice.
Hmm... Are you developing from a read-only source tree?
No, but the build system is building from one (at least conceptually).
The larger point is that while the SOURCE_EPOCH patch will likely work for Linux distributions, I'm interested in being able to have deterministic pycs in "normal" Python development workflows.
That's an interesting idea, but is there a concrete motivation or is it platonical? After all, if you're changing something in the source tree it's expected that the overall "signature" of the build will be modified too.
Yes, I have used Bazel to build pycs. Having pycs be deterministic allows interesting build system optimizations like Bazel distributed caching to work well for Python.