|
It can always be added if is is found useful and robust. We tend to be careful about taking things into core layers as long as those two concerns, plus the maintenance commitment are not clear. Technical debt is a real problem.
Seems like a shame not to add this feature for everyone to use... Yishai Jaffe
Making your own! You can have it added to the layer index for better publicity.
Alex
On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 at 13:27, Yishai Jaffe <yishai1999@...> wrote:
>
> What layer would you suggest?
>
> Yishai Jaffe
>
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2022, 2:21 PM Alexander Kanavin <alex.kanavin@...> wrote:
>>
>> You can start by placing it in a separate layer?
>>
>> Alex
>>
>> On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 at 13:04, Yishai Jaffe <yishai1999@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > I assume by core you mean openembedded-core/poky, yes?
>> >
>> > So where would you add it to?
>> >
>> > Seems to me like a very useful feature that many people would use if they knew the option exists.
>> >
>> > Also, I noticed that in the recipe for python there is a variable named INCLUDE_PYC which does exactly what you think it would. This looks to me like someone did think about the whole python size subject but didn't exactly go through with it all the way. You can decide if to include pyc files but not the opposite. Also, this feature which does exist only applies to the python recipe but not to all other non-base python module recipes. Maybe this can be added to setuptools3 bbclass?
>> >
>> > Yishai Jaffe
>> >
>> > On Thu, Nov 17, 2022, 1:24 PM Alexander Kanavin <alex.kanavin@...> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I just wonder if this should really be in core. The standards for core
>> >> are high: it needs to be both testable and tested, and there's only so
>> >> many possible options and tweaks where things can regress that we can
>> >> take. On the other hand, there has not been much demand for it.
>> >>
>> >> Alex
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 at 12:13, Yishai Jaffe <yishai1999@...> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Hi Alexander,
>> >> >
>> >> > After some research, these are the numbers I came up with for compiling core-image-minimal with python3-core:
>> >> >
>> >> > Normal compilation:
>> >> > tar.bz2 - 6.6MB
>> >> > squashfs-xz - 6.1MB
>> >> >
>> >> > With my pyc-only patch:
>> >> > tar.bz2 - 5.8MB
>> >> > squashfs-xz - 5.2MB
>> >> >
>> >> > So that's about a 15% decrease in size.
>> >> > Again, this is for an image only with python3-core. Logically that would mean that if you had an image with more python packages it would be even a bigger percentage.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Yishai Jaffe
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Sun, Nov 13, 2022 at 5:12 PM Alexander Kanavin <alex.kanavin@...> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Generally we slim down python installations by not installing all of
>> >> >> the standard library, and rather having precise dependencies for
>> >> >> specific modules. Can you illustrate the kind of space savings that
>> >> >> can be gained in actual numbers?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Another issue is that this should be supported upstream and in the
>> >> >> wider python community. Is it?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Alex
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 at 14:25, Federico Pellegrin <fede@...> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Hello,
>> >> >> > Just as a small reference since I raised some doubts and questions in Buildroot community on this: there has been also some troubles to understand the correctness or not there (as I found some packages with problems due to this source-less management) and this then sparked, besides discussions in the Buildroot mailing list (roughly end of July / beginning of August if someone interested searching there), also an issue to the Python community, which albeit some discussion I think never arrived to a concrete conclusion. This is the issue: https://github.com/python/cpython/issues/95827 (see also the linked one maybe)
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > These are just my 2 cents to this discussion, then of course the Python experts will probably chime in and describe the official/discussed position of Yocto regarding to this, but just felt like mentioning that although Buildroot is somehow offering this right now (and likely mostly works as well!), it's not really a so clean and/or agreed solution.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Cheers,
>> >> >> > Federico
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Il giorno dom 13 nov 2022 alle ore 13:55 Yishai Jaffe <yishai1999@...> ha scritto:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Hi,
>> >> >> >> I was wondering if there has been talk about support for source-less python on an image. Installing py and pyc files doubles the size of python on the rootfs. I can imagine this being implemented as an image feature.
>> >> >> >> I know that in buildroot it is supported.
>> >> >> >> Was this discussed and decided against? Is this an open issue?
>> >> >> >> I have a working patch that implements this. I can submit it for review.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Thanks,
>> >> >> >> Yishai Jaffe
>> >> >> >> Yishai Jaffe
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
|
|
|
Seems like a shame not to add this feature for everyone to use... Yishai Jaffe
Making your own! You can have it added to the layer index for better publicity.
Alex
On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 at 13:27, Yishai Jaffe <yishai1999@...> wrote:
>
> What layer would you suggest?
>
> Yishai Jaffe
>
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2022, 2:21 PM Alexander Kanavin <alex.kanavin@...> wrote:
>>
>> You can start by placing it in a separate layer?
>>
>> Alex
>>
>> On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 at 13:04, Yishai Jaffe <yishai1999@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > I assume by core you mean openembedded-core/poky, yes?
>> >
>> > So where would you add it to?
>> >
>> > Seems to me like a very useful feature that many people would use if they knew the option exists.
>> >
>> > Also, I noticed that in the recipe for python there is a variable named INCLUDE_PYC which does exactly what you think it would. This looks to me like someone did think about the whole python size subject but didn't exactly go through with it all the way. You can decide if to include pyc files but not the opposite. Also, this feature which does exist only applies to the python recipe but not to all other non-base python module recipes. Maybe this can be added to setuptools3 bbclass?
>> >
>> > Yishai Jaffe
>> >
>> > On Thu, Nov 17, 2022, 1:24 PM Alexander Kanavin <alex.kanavin@...> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I just wonder if this should really be in core. The standards for core
>> >> are high: it needs to be both testable and tested, and there's only so
>> >> many possible options and tweaks where things can regress that we can
>> >> take. On the other hand, there has not been much demand for it.
>> >>
>> >> Alex
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 at 12:13, Yishai Jaffe <yishai1999@...> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Hi Alexander,
>> >> >
>> >> > After some research, these are the numbers I came up with for compiling core-image-minimal with python3-core:
>> >> >
>> >> > Normal compilation:
>> >> > tar.bz2 - 6.6MB
>> >> > squashfs-xz - 6.1MB
>> >> >
>> >> > With my pyc-only patch:
>> >> > tar.bz2 - 5.8MB
>> >> > squashfs-xz - 5.2MB
>> >> >
>> >> > So that's about a 15% decrease in size.
>> >> > Again, this is for an image only with python3-core. Logically that would mean that if you had an image with more python packages it would be even a bigger percentage.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Yishai Jaffe
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Sun, Nov 13, 2022 at 5:12 PM Alexander Kanavin <alex.kanavin@...> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Generally we slim down python installations by not installing all of
>> >> >> the standard library, and rather having precise dependencies for
>> >> >> specific modules. Can you illustrate the kind of space savings that
>> >> >> can be gained in actual numbers?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Another issue is that this should be supported upstream and in the
>> >> >> wider python community. Is it?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Alex
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 at 14:25, Federico Pellegrin <fede@...> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Hello,
>> >> >> > Just as a small reference since I raised some doubts and questions in Buildroot community on this: there has been also some troubles to understand the correctness or not there (as I found some packages with problems due to this source-less management) and this then sparked, besides discussions in the Buildroot mailing list (roughly end of July / beginning of August if someone interested searching there), also an issue to the Python community, which albeit some discussion I think never arrived to a concrete conclusion. This is the issue: https://github.com/python/cpython/issues/95827 (see also the linked one maybe)
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > These are just my 2 cents to this discussion, then of course the Python experts will probably chime in and describe the official/discussed position of Yocto regarding to this, but just felt like mentioning that although Buildroot is somehow offering this right now (and likely mostly works as well!), it's not really a so clean and/or agreed solution.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Cheers,
>> >> >> > Federico
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Il giorno dom 13 nov 2022 alle ore 13:55 Yishai Jaffe <yishai1999@...> ha scritto:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Hi,
>> >> >> >> I was wondering if there has been talk about support for source-less python on an image. Installing py and pyc files doubles the size of python on the rootfs. I can imagine this being implemented as an image feature.
>> >> >> >> I know that in buildroot it is supported.
>> >> >> >> Was this discussed and decided against? Is this an open issue?
>> >> >> >> I have a working patch that implements this. I can submit it for review.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Thanks,
>> >> >> >> Yishai Jaffe
>> >> >> >> Yishai Jaffe
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
|
|
|
Making your own! You can have it added to the layer index for better publicity.
Alex
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 at 13:27, Yishai Jaffe <yishai1999@...> wrote:
What layer would you suggest?
Yishai Jaffe
On Thu, Nov 17, 2022, 2:21 PM Alexander Kanavin <alex.kanavin@...> wrote:
You can start by placing it in a separate layer?
Alex
On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 at 13:04, Yishai Jaffe <yishai1999@...> wrote:
I assume by core you mean openembedded-core/poky, yes?
So where would you add it to?
Seems to me like a very useful feature that many people would use if they knew the option exists.
Also, I noticed that in the recipe for python there is a variable named INCLUDE_PYC which does exactly what you think it would. This looks to me like someone did think about the whole python size subject but didn't exactly go through with it all the way. You can decide if to include pyc files but not the opposite. Also, this feature which does exist only applies to the python recipe but not to all other non-base python module recipes. Maybe this can be added to setuptools3 bbclass?
Yishai Jaffe
On Thu, Nov 17, 2022, 1:24 PM Alexander Kanavin <alex.kanavin@...> wrote:
I just wonder if this should really be in core. The standards for core
are high: it needs to be both testable and tested, and there's only so
many possible options and tweaks where things can regress that we can
take. On the other hand, there has not been much demand for it.
Alex
On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 at 12:13, Yishai Jaffe <yishai1999@...> wrote:
Hi Alexander,
After some research, these are the numbers I came up with for compiling core-image-minimal with python3-core:
Normal compilation:
tar.bz2 - 6.6MB
squashfs-xz - 6.1MB
With my pyc-only patch:
tar.bz2 - 5.8MB
squashfs-xz - 5.2MB
So that's about a 15% decrease in size.
Again, this is for an image only with python3-core. Logically that would mean that if you had an image with more python packages it would be even a bigger percentage.
Yishai Jaffe
On Sun, Nov 13, 2022 at 5:12 PM Alexander Kanavin <alex.kanavin@...> wrote:
Generally we slim down python installations by not installing all of
the standard library, and rather having precise dependencies for
specific modules. Can you illustrate the kind of space savings that
can be gained in actual numbers?
Another issue is that this should be supported upstream and in the
wider python community. Is it?
Alex
On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 at 14:25, Federico Pellegrin <fede@...> wrote:
Hello,
Just as a small reference since I raised some doubts and questions in Buildroot community on this: there has been also some troubles to understand the correctness or not there (as I found some packages with problems due to this source-less management) and this then sparked, besides discussions in the Buildroot mailing list (roughly end of July / beginning of August if someone interested searching there), also an issue to the Python community, which albeit some discussion I think never arrived to a concrete conclusion. This is the issue: https://github.com/python/cpython/issues/95827 (see also the linked one maybe)
These are just my 2 cents to this discussion, then of course the Python experts will probably chime in and describe the official/discussed position of Yocto regarding to this, but just felt like mentioning that although Buildroot is somehow offering this right now (and likely mostly works as well!), it's not really a so clean and/or agreed solution.
Cheers,
Federico
Il giorno dom 13 nov 2022 alle ore 13:55 Yishai Jaffe <yishai1999@...> ha scritto:
Hi,
I was wondering if there has been talk about support for source-less python on an image. Installing py and pyc files doubles the size of python on the rootfs. I can imagine this being implemented as an image feature.
I know that in buildroot it is supported.
Was this discussed and decided against? Is this an open issue?
I have a working patch that implements this. I can submit it for review.
Thanks,
Yishai Jaffe
Yishai Jaffe
|
|
|
What layer would you suggest? Yishai Jaffe
You can start by placing it in a separate layer?
Alex
On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 at 13:04, Yishai Jaffe <yishai1999@...> wrote:
>
> I assume by core you mean openembedded-core/poky, yes?
>
> So where would you add it to?
>
> Seems to me like a very useful feature that many people would use if they knew the option exists.
>
> Also, I noticed that in the recipe for python there is a variable named INCLUDE_PYC which does exactly what you think it would. This looks to me like someone did think about the whole python size subject but didn't exactly go through with it all the way. You can decide if to include pyc files but not the opposite. Also, this feature which does exist only applies to the python recipe but not to all other non-base python module recipes. Maybe this can be added to setuptools3 bbclass?
>
> Yishai Jaffe
>
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2022, 1:24 PM Alexander Kanavin <alex.kanavin@...> wrote:
>>
>> I just wonder if this should really be in core. The standards for core
>> are high: it needs to be both testable and tested, and there's only so
>> many possible options and tweaks where things can regress that we can
>> take. On the other hand, there has not been much demand for it.
>>
>> Alex
>>
>> On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 at 12:13, Yishai Jaffe <yishai1999@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Alexander,
>> >
>> > After some research, these are the numbers I came up with for compiling core-image-minimal with python3-core:
>> >
>> > Normal compilation:
>> > tar.bz2 - 6.6MB
>> > squashfs-xz - 6.1MB
>> >
>> > With my pyc-only patch:
>> > tar.bz2 - 5.8MB
>> > squashfs-xz - 5.2MB
>> >
>> > So that's about a 15% decrease in size.
>> > Again, this is for an image only with python3-core. Logically that would mean that if you had an image with more python packages it would be even a bigger percentage.
>> >
>> >
>> > Yishai Jaffe
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sun, Nov 13, 2022 at 5:12 PM Alexander Kanavin <alex.kanavin@...> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Generally we slim down python installations by not installing all of
>> >> the standard library, and rather having precise dependencies for
>> >> specific modules. Can you illustrate the kind of space savings that
>> >> can be gained in actual numbers?
>> >>
>> >> Another issue is that this should be supported upstream and in the
>> >> wider python community. Is it?
>> >>
>> >> Alex
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 at 14:25, Federico Pellegrin <fede@...> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Hello,
>> >> > Just as a small reference since I raised some doubts and questions in Buildroot community on this: there has been also some troubles to understand the correctness or not there (as I found some packages with problems due to this source-less management) and this then sparked, besides discussions in the Buildroot mailing list (roughly end of July / beginning of August if someone interested searching there), also an issue to the Python community, which albeit some discussion I think never arrived to a concrete conclusion. This is the issue: https://github.com/python/cpython/issues/95827 (see also the linked one maybe)
>> >> >
>> >> > These are just my 2 cents to this discussion, then of course the Python experts will probably chime in and describe the official/discussed position of Yocto regarding to this, but just felt like mentioning that although Buildroot is somehow offering this right now (and likely mostly works as well!), it's not really a so clean and/or agreed solution.
>> >> >
>> >> > Cheers,
>> >> > Federico
>> >> >
>> >> > Il giorno dom 13 nov 2022 alle ore 13:55 Yishai Jaffe <yishai1999@...> ha scritto:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Hi,
>> >> >> I was wondering if there has been talk about support for source-less python on an image. Installing py and pyc files doubles the size of python on the rootfs. I can imagine this being implemented as an image feature.
>> >> >> I know that in buildroot it is supported.
>> >> >> Was this discussed and decided against? Is this an open issue?
>> >> >> I have a working patch that implements this. I can submit it for review.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thanks,
>> >> >> Yishai Jaffe
>> >> >> Yishai Jaffe
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
|
|
|
You can start by placing it in a separate layer?
Alex
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 at 13:04, Yishai Jaffe <yishai1999@...> wrote:
I assume by core you mean openembedded-core/poky, yes?
So where would you add it to?
Seems to me like a very useful feature that many people would use if they knew the option exists.
Also, I noticed that in the recipe for python there is a variable named INCLUDE_PYC which does exactly what you think it would. This looks to me like someone did think about the whole python size subject but didn't exactly go through with it all the way. You can decide if to include pyc files but not the opposite. Also, this feature which does exist only applies to the python recipe but not to all other non-base python module recipes. Maybe this can be added to setuptools3 bbclass?
Yishai Jaffe
On Thu, Nov 17, 2022, 1:24 PM Alexander Kanavin <alex.kanavin@...> wrote:
I just wonder if this should really be in core. The standards for core
are high: it needs to be both testable and tested, and there's only so
many possible options and tweaks where things can regress that we can
take. On the other hand, there has not been much demand for it.
Alex
On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 at 12:13, Yishai Jaffe <yishai1999@...> wrote:
Hi Alexander,
After some research, these are the numbers I came up with for compiling core-image-minimal with python3-core:
Normal compilation:
tar.bz2 - 6.6MB
squashfs-xz - 6.1MB
With my pyc-only patch:
tar.bz2 - 5.8MB
squashfs-xz - 5.2MB
So that's about a 15% decrease in size.
Again, this is for an image only with python3-core. Logically that would mean that if you had an image with more python packages it would be even a bigger percentage.
Yishai Jaffe
On Sun, Nov 13, 2022 at 5:12 PM Alexander Kanavin <alex.kanavin@...> wrote:
Generally we slim down python installations by not installing all of
the standard library, and rather having precise dependencies for
specific modules. Can you illustrate the kind of space savings that
can be gained in actual numbers?
Another issue is that this should be supported upstream and in the
wider python community. Is it?
Alex
On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 at 14:25, Federico Pellegrin <fede@...> wrote:
Hello,
Just as a small reference since I raised some doubts and questions in Buildroot community on this: there has been also some troubles to understand the correctness or not there (as I found some packages with problems due to this source-less management) and this then sparked, besides discussions in the Buildroot mailing list (roughly end of July / beginning of August if someone interested searching there), also an issue to the Python community, which albeit some discussion I think never arrived to a concrete conclusion. This is the issue: https://github.com/python/cpython/issues/95827 (see also the linked one maybe)
These are just my 2 cents to this discussion, then of course the Python experts will probably chime in and describe the official/discussed position of Yocto regarding to this, but just felt like mentioning that although Buildroot is somehow offering this right now (and likely mostly works as well!), it's not really a so clean and/or agreed solution.
Cheers,
Federico
Il giorno dom 13 nov 2022 alle ore 13:55 Yishai Jaffe <yishai1999@...> ha scritto:
Hi,
I was wondering if there has been talk about support for source-less python on an image. Installing py and pyc files doubles the size of python on the rootfs. I can imagine this being implemented as an image feature.
I know that in buildroot it is supported.
Was this discussed and decided against? Is this an open issue?
I have a working patch that implements this. I can submit it for review.
Thanks,
Yishai Jaffe
Yishai Jaffe
|
|
|
I assume by core you mean openembedded-core/poky, yes? So where would you add it to?
Seems to me like a very useful feature that many people would use if they knew the option exists.
Also, I noticed that in the recipe for python there is a variable named INCLUDE_PYC which does exactly what you think it would. This looks to me like someone did think about the whole python size subject but didn't exactly go through with it all the way. You can decide if to include pyc files but not the opposite. Also, this feature which does exist only applies to the python recipe but not to all other non-base python module recipes. Maybe this can be added to setuptools3 bbclass? Yishai Jaffe
I just wonder if this should really be in core. The standards for core
are high: it needs to be both testable and tested, and there's only so
many possible options and tweaks where things can regress that we can
take. On the other hand, there has not been much demand for it.
Alex
On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 at 12:13, Yishai Jaffe <yishai1999@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Alexander,
>
> After some research, these are the numbers I came up with for compiling core-image-minimal with python3-core:
>
> Normal compilation:
> tar.bz2 - 6.6MB
> squashfs-xz - 6.1MB
>
> With my pyc-only patch:
> tar.bz2 - 5.8MB
> squashfs-xz - 5.2MB
>
> So that's about a 15% decrease in size.
> Again, this is for an image only with python3-core. Logically that would mean that if you had an image with more python packages it would be even a bigger percentage.
>
>
> Yishai Jaffe
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 13, 2022 at 5:12 PM Alexander Kanavin <alex.kanavin@...> wrote:
>>
>> Generally we slim down python installations by not installing all of
>> the standard library, and rather having precise dependencies for
>> specific modules. Can you illustrate the kind of space savings that
>> can be gained in actual numbers?
>>
>> Another issue is that this should be supported upstream and in the
>> wider python community. Is it?
>>
>> Alex
>>
>> On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 at 14:25, Federico Pellegrin <fede@...> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Hello,
>> > Just as a small reference since I raised some doubts and questions in Buildroot community on this: there has been also some troubles to understand the correctness or not there (as I found some packages with problems due to this source-less management) and this then sparked, besides discussions in the Buildroot mailing list (roughly end of July / beginning of August if someone interested searching there), also an issue to the Python community, which albeit some discussion I think never arrived to a concrete conclusion. This is the issue: https://github.com/python/cpython/issues/95827 (see also the linked one maybe)
>> >
>> > These are just my 2 cents to this discussion, then of course the Python experts will probably chime in and describe the official/discussed position of Yocto regarding to this, but just felt like mentioning that although Buildroot is somehow offering this right now (and likely mostly works as well!), it's not really a so clean and/or agreed solution.
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Federico
>> >
>> > Il giorno dom 13 nov 2022 alle ore 13:55 Yishai Jaffe <yishai1999@...> ha scritto:
>> >>
>> >> Hi,
>> >> I was wondering if there has been talk about support for source-less python on an image. Installing py and pyc files doubles the size of python on the rootfs. I can imagine this being implemented as an image feature.
>> >> I know that in buildroot it is supported.
>> >> Was this discussed and decided against? Is this an open issue?
>> >> I have a working patch that implements this. I can submit it for review.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Yishai Jaffe
>> >> Yishai Jaffe
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
|
|
|
I just wonder if this should really be in core. The standards for core
are high: it needs to be both testable and tested, and there's only so
many possible options and tweaks where things can regress that we can
take. On the other hand, there has not been much demand for it.
Alex
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 at 12:13, Yishai Jaffe <yishai1999@...> wrote:
Hi Alexander,
After some research, these are the numbers I came up with for compiling core-image-minimal with python3-core:
Normal compilation:
tar.bz2 - 6.6MB
squashfs-xz - 6.1MB
With my pyc-only patch:
tar.bz2 - 5.8MB
squashfs-xz - 5.2MB
So that's about a 15% decrease in size.
Again, this is for an image only with python3-core. Logically that would mean that if you had an image with more python packages it would be even a bigger percentage.
Yishai Jaffe
On Sun, Nov 13, 2022 at 5:12 PM Alexander Kanavin <alex.kanavin@...> wrote:
Generally we slim down python installations by not installing all of
the standard library, and rather having precise dependencies for
specific modules. Can you illustrate the kind of space savings that
can be gained in actual numbers?
Another issue is that this should be supported upstream and in the
wider python community. Is it?
Alex
On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 at 14:25, Federico Pellegrin <fede@...> wrote:
Hello,
Just as a small reference since I raised some doubts and questions in Buildroot community on this: there has been also some troubles to understand the correctness or not there (as I found some packages with problems due to this source-less management) and this then sparked, besides discussions in the Buildroot mailing list (roughly end of July / beginning of August if someone interested searching there), also an issue to the Python community, which albeit some discussion I think never arrived to a concrete conclusion. This is the issue: https://github.com/python/cpython/issues/95827 (see also the linked one maybe)
These are just my 2 cents to this discussion, then of course the Python experts will probably chime in and describe the official/discussed position of Yocto regarding to this, but just felt like mentioning that although Buildroot is somehow offering this right now (and likely mostly works as well!), it's not really a so clean and/or agreed solution.
Cheers,
Federico
Il giorno dom 13 nov 2022 alle ore 13:55 Yishai Jaffe <yishai1999@...> ha scritto:
Hi,
I was wondering if there has been talk about support for source-less python on an image. Installing py and pyc files doubles the size of python on the rootfs. I can imagine this being implemented as an image feature.
I know that in buildroot it is supported.
Was this discussed and decided against? Is this an open issue?
I have a working patch that implements this. I can submit it for review.
Thanks,
Yishai Jaffe
Yishai Jaffe
|
|
|
Hi Alexander,
After some research, these are the numbers I came up with for compiling core-image-minimal with python3-core:
Normal compilation: tar.bz2 - 6.6MB squashfs-xz - 6.1MB
With my pyc-only patch: tar.bz2 - 5.8MB squashfs-xz - 5.2MB
So that's about a 15% decrease in size. Again, this is for an image only with python3-core. Logically that would mean that if you had an image with more python packages it would be even a bigger percentage.
Generally we slim down python installations by not installing all of
the standard library, and rather having precise dependencies for
specific modules. Can you illustrate the kind of space savings that
can be gained in actual numbers?
Another issue is that this should be supported upstream and in the
wider python community. Is it?
Alex
On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 at 14:25, Federico Pellegrin <fede@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hello,
> Just as a small reference since I raised some doubts and questions in Buildroot community on this: there has been also some troubles to understand the correctness or not there (as I found some packages with problems due to this source-less management) and this then sparked, besides discussions in the Buildroot mailing list (roughly end of July / beginning of August if someone interested searching there), also an issue to the Python community, which albeit some discussion I think never arrived to a concrete conclusion. This is the issue: https://github.com/python/cpython/issues/95827 (see also the linked one maybe)
>
> These are just my 2 cents to this discussion, then of course the Python experts will probably chime in and describe the official/discussed position of Yocto regarding to this, but just felt like mentioning that although Buildroot is somehow offering this right now (and likely mostly works as well!), it's not really a so clean and/or agreed solution.
>
> Cheers,
> Federico
>
> Il giorno dom 13 nov 2022 alle ore 13:55 Yishai Jaffe <yishai1999@...> ha scritto:
>>
>> Hi,
>> I was wondering if there has been talk about support for source-less python on an image. Installing py and pyc files doubles the size of python on the rootfs. I can imagine this being implemented as an image feature.
>> I know that in buildroot it is supported.
>> Was this discussed and decided against? Is this an open issue?
>> I have a working patch that implements this. I can submit it for review.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Yishai Jaffe
>> Yishai Jaffe
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
|
|
|
Il giorno dom 13 nov 2022 alle ore 16:12 Alexander Kanavin < alex.kanavin@...> ha scritto: Generally we slim down python installations by not installing all of
the standard library, and rather having precise dependencies for
specific modules. Can you illustrate the kind of space savings that
can be gained in actual numbers?
Just to go with some concrete numbers from a Buildroot example I have under my hands, with just very basic Python 3.10 support (so no additional modules, just what gets in with only BR2_PACKAGE_PYTHON3=y) the difference of size you have between using PYC only (BR2_PACKAGE_PYTHON3_PYC_ONLY=y) and source only (BR2_PACKAGE_PYTHON3_PY_ONLY=y) of the generated /usr/lib/python3.10 is 14Mb vs 17Mb. So roughly a 20% ?
Besides the space savings, using the PYC only brings also a speedup in startup of course.
But strictly on space savings: one should also take into account that the difference we see is not counting the fact that very often then one has a compressed filesystem underneath. This is especially true when you have space constrained embedded devices where you'd like to save space, but not necessarily that -20% is effective, once you take into account the filesystem compression.
(please note: not the original thread initiator asking to support this in Yocto, just chimed in soon after as dealed with this in different context ;-) )
Another issue is that this should be supported upstream and in the
wider python community. Is it?
That is the problem IMO: if you look at the linked github issue I posted last, I don't think there is a full agreement. So while things mostly work (and pretty well), there are some edge cases for sure (ie trivially handling pyc compiled scripts or modules that could be executed as scripts as well as modules). (here is some discussion: http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/2022-August/648686.html )
Cheers, Federico
Alex
On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 at 14:25, Federico Pellegrin <fede@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hello,
> Just as a small reference since I raised some doubts and questions in Buildroot community on this: there has been also some troubles to understand the correctness or not there (as I found some packages with problems due to this source-less management) and this then sparked, besides discussions in the Buildroot mailing list (roughly end of July / beginning of August if someone interested searching there), also an issue to the Python community, which albeit some discussion I think never arrived to a concrete conclusion. This is the issue: https://github.com/python/cpython/issues/95827 (see also the linked one maybe)
>
> These are just my 2 cents to this discussion, then of course the Python experts will probably chime in and describe the official/discussed position of Yocto regarding to this, but just felt like mentioning that although Buildroot is somehow offering this right now (and likely mostly works as well!), it's not really a so clean and/or agreed solution.
>
> Cheers,
> Federico
>
> Il giorno dom 13 nov 2022 alle ore 13:55 Yishai Jaffe <yishai1999@...> ha scritto:
>>
>> Hi,
>> I was wondering if there has been talk about support for source-less python on an image. Installing py and pyc files doubles the size of python on the rootfs. I can imagine this being implemented as an image feature.
>> I know that in buildroot it is supported.
>> Was this discussed and decided against? Is this an open issue?
>> I have a working patch that implements this. I can submit it for review.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Yishai Jaffe
>> Yishai Jaffe
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
|
|
|
Generally we slim down python installations by not installing all of
the standard library, and rather having precise dependencies for
specific modules. Can you illustrate the kind of space savings that
can be gained in actual numbers?
Another issue is that this should be supported upstream and in the
wider python community. Is it?
Alex
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 at 14:25, Federico Pellegrin <fede@...> wrote:
Hello,
Just as a small reference since I raised some doubts and questions in Buildroot community on this: there has been also some troubles to understand the correctness or not there (as I found some packages with problems due to this source-less management) and this then sparked, besides discussions in the Buildroot mailing list (roughly end of July / beginning of August if someone interested searching there), also an issue to the Python community, which albeit some discussion I think never arrived to a concrete conclusion. This is the issue: https://github.com/python/cpython/issues/95827 (see also the linked one maybe)
These are just my 2 cents to this discussion, then of course the Python experts will probably chime in and describe the official/discussed position of Yocto regarding to this, but just felt like mentioning that although Buildroot is somehow offering this right now (and likely mostly works as well!), it's not really a so clean and/or agreed solution.
Cheers,
Federico
Il giorno dom 13 nov 2022 alle ore 13:55 Yishai Jaffe <yishai1999@...> ha scritto:
Hi,
I was wondering if there has been talk about support for source-less python on an image. Installing py and pyc files doubles the size of python on the rootfs. I can imagine this being implemented as an image feature.
I know that in buildroot it is supported.
Was this discussed and decided against? Is this an open issue?
I have a working patch that implements this. I can submit it for review.
Thanks,
Yishai Jaffe
Yishai Jaffe
|
|
|
Hello, Just as a small reference since I raised some doubts and questions in Buildroot community on this: there has been also some troubles to understand the correctness or not there (as I found some packages with problems due to this source-less management) and this then sparked, besides discussions in the Buildroot mailing list (roughly end of July / beginning of August if someone interested searching there), also an issue to the Python community, which albeit some discussion I think never arrived to a concrete conclusion. This is the issue: https://github.com/python/cpython/issues/95827 (see also the linked one maybe)
These are just my 2 cents to this discussion, then of course the Python experts will probably chime in and describe the official/discussed position of Yocto regarding to this, but just felt like mentioning that although Buildroot is somehow offering this right now (and likely mostly works as well!), it's not really a so clean and/or agreed solution.
Cheers, Federico
Il giorno dom 13 nov 2022 alle ore 13:55 Yishai Jaffe < yishai1999@...> ha scritto: Hi, I was wondering if there has been talk about support for source-less python on an image. Installing py and pyc files doubles the size of python on the rootfs. I can imagine this being implemented as an image feature. I know that in buildroot it is supported. Was this discussed and decided against? Is this an open issue?
I have a working patch that implements this. I can submit it for review.
Thanks,
|
|
|
Hi, I was wondering if there has been talk about support for source-less python on an image. Installing py and pyc files doubles the size of python on the rootfs. I can imagine this being implemented as an image feature. I know that in buildroot it is supported. Was this discussed and decided against? Is this an open issue?
I have a working patch that implements this. I can submit it for review.
Thanks,
|
|
|
