Re: Pitfall: mxODBCZopeDA and test runner in 2.9+
Jens Vagelpohl <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.web.zope.database |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 12 Oct 2006, at 17:57, Charlie Clark wrote: > Am 10.10.2006, 23:35 Uhr, schrieb Paul Winkler <[email protected]>: > >> If you fail to use -k, the zope test runner will delete bytecode >> for all >> your products - including mxODBCZopeDA, which has no .py files to >> fall >> back on. Ouch. I'll investigate further - there might be a bug to >> file >> against zope.testing. > > For development purposes of this nature you might drop mxODBCZopeDA > in your SOFTWARE_HOME rather than INSTANCE_HOME which should protect. Since I've come against this myself, I'd really like to know a single sane reason to ship just pyc files. Don't get me wrong, I like the product and will recommend it all day long, but shipping just pyc files is odd. Not only gives it a queasy feeling of "well, I guess they really don't trust their paying customers", it also legally prevents me from creating patches to help you guys because that would imply I ran one of the easily-available code decompilers against those Python modules. Even regardless of the ease with which pyc files can be reconstituted into readable Python. I just couldn't come up with one good reason. jens -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin) iD8DBQFFLtcKRAx5nvEhZLIRAhUVAJ9+0YQ0Y5iG5G7h++9onGBwFHenfACgp6UB DXY4uDHG5BeOiQNjXM86x40= =Mmx4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----