[OpenWrt-Devel] alternative for "pyserial+python-mini"

[Alexandru Ardelean]

It's still turned off.
But it was turned off again, once it was moved to Github.
There was a more recent discussion here:
https://github.com/openwrt/packages/issues/474

[ Quick answer here: yes we can precompile bytecodes at build-time and ship
those instead ]

So, .py  vs  .pyc  vs  .pyo  is a recurring question.

.py - python source file
.pyc - compiled bytecodes (from .py file)
.pyo - compiled optimized bytecodes (not sure yet what optimized means)

Which of these 3 formats should the Python libraries use to be packaged ?
Opinions differ here.

At the time I packaged python, it seemed logical that .py files should be
it; that's how most how distros get Python packaged.
But then, .py files automatically generate .pyc files that fill up RAM or
Flash, so that was disabled [ for the OpenWRT case ].

But now that I re-think about it [for the OpenWRT case] maybe changing to
.pyo would be better, since it would optimize performance (size & speed).
And then the source files could be re-packaged to python-sources [ or
something ] .
One proposal was a bit backwards in logic: i.e. package Python libs as are
now, and package Python bytecodes in additional+installable packages.
My main preference here, is that I wouldn't want to give up the convenience
of having Python source files, which is why I prefer[ed] to sacrifice
performance in the first place.
[ And then, nobody complained yet loud enough to change this ].

So, this python packages to bytecode conversion + python sources packages
would be an interesting idea to do.


On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 11:48 PM, valent.turkovic at gmail.com <
valent.turkovic at gmail.com> wrote:

> Just found this --
>
> https://dev.openwrt.org/browser/packages/lang/python/files/python-package.mk?rev=13921
> -- which suggests that 7 years ago .pyc file creation was turned OFF
> for Python.
>
> I can only assume that it was because of the SquashFS issue, so my
> question is: Can we precompile Python files at image creation time so
> that they can be included in the SquashFS from the beginning. Maybe a
> cross-compiling guru can enlighten us?
>
> On 2 July 2015 at 11:25, Alexandru Ardelean <ardeleanalex at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Will make time to update Python :)
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 11:51 AM, valent.turkovic at gmail.com
> > <valent.turkovic at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Come on guys help me out with Python wiki page, it looks like I know
> >> much less about python that you and I'm the only one documenting this
> >> which is bad :)
> >>
> >> Take a look at latest version:
> >> http://wiki.openwrt.org/doc/software/python
> >>
> >> On 27 June 2015 at 22:42, Christian Mehlis <christian at m3hlis.de> wrote:
> >> > Am 26.06.2015 um 14:57 schrieb valent.turkovic at gmail.com:
> >> >>
> >> >> Does micro-python have some alternative or replacement for pyserial?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > you can use stty[1] from busybox to configure the tty.
> >> > After that every program can use regular read/write calls...
> >> >
> >> > [1] http://unixhelp.ed.ac.uk/CGI/man-cgi?stty
> >> >
> >> > Best
> >> > Christian
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > openwrt-devel mailing list
> >> > openwrt-devel at lists.openwrt.org
> >> > https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
> >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/openwrt-devel/attachments/20150722/6df232d3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel at lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel