python-peps/pep-3147.txt

PEP: 3147
Title: PYC Repository Directories
Version: $Revision$
Last-Modified: $Date$
Author: Barry Warsaw <barry@python.org>
Status: Draft
Type: Standards Track
Content-Type: text/x-rst
Created: 2009-12-16
Python-Version: 3.2
Post-History:


Abstract
========

This PEP describes an extension to Python's import mechanism which
improves sharing of Python source code files among multiple installed
different versions of the Python interpreter.  It does this by
allowing many different byte compilation files (.pyc files) to be
co-located with the Python source file (.py file).  The extension
described here can also be used to support different Python
compilation caches, such as JIT output that may be produced by an
Unladen Swallow [1]_ enabled C Python.


Rationale
=========

Linux distributions such as Ubuntu [2]_ and Debian [3]_ provide more
than one Python version at the same time to their users.  For example,
Ubuntu 9.10 Karmic Koala can install Python 2.5, 2.6, and 3.1, with
Python 2.6 being the default.

In order to ease the burden on operating system packagers for these
distributions, the distribution packages do not contain Python version
numbers [4]_; they are shared across all Python versions installed on
the system.  Putting Python version numbers in the packages would be a
maintenance nightmare, since all the packages - *and their
dependencies* - would have to be updated every time a new Python
release was added or removed from the distribution.  Because of the
sheer number of packages available, this amount of work is infeasible.

For pure Python modules, sharing is possible because upstream
maintainers typically support multiple versions of Python in a source
compatible way.  In practice though, it is well known that pyc files
are not compatible across Python major releases.  A reading of
import.c [5]_ in the Python source code proves that within recent
memory, every new CPython major release has bumped the pyc magic
number.

Even C extensions can be source compatible across multiple versions of
Python.  Compiled extension modules are usually not compatible though,
and PEP 384 [6]_ has been proposed to address this by defining a
stable ABI for extension modules.

Because the distributions cannot share pyc files, elaborate mechanisms
have been developed to put the resulting pyc files in non-shared
locations while the source code is still shared.  Examples include the
symlink-based Debian regimes python-support [7]_ and python-central
[8]_.  These approaches make for much more complicated, fragile,
inscrutable, and fragmented policies for delivering Python
applications to a wide range of users.  Arguably more users get Python
from their operating system vendor than from upstream tarballs.  Thus,
solving this pyc sharing problem for CPython is a high priority for
such vendors.

This PEP proposes a solution to this problem.


Proposal
========

Python's import machinery is extended to search for byte code cache
files in a directory co-located with the source file, but with an
extension 'pyr'.  The pyr directory contains individual files with the
cached byte compilation of the source code, identical to current pyc
and pyo files.  The files inside the pyr directory retain their file
extensions, but the base name is replaced by the hexlified [10]_ magic
number of the Python version the byte code is compatible with.

The file extension pyr was chosen because 'r' is a mnemonic for
'repository', and there appears to be no prior uses of the extension
[9]_.

For example, a module `foo` with source code in `foo.py` and byte
compiled with Python 2.5, Python 2.6, Python 2.6 `-O`, Python 2.6
`-U`, and Python 3.1 would have the following file system layout::

    foo.py
    foo.pyr/
        f2b30a0d.pyc # Python 2.5
        f2d10a0d.pyc # Python 2.6
        f2d10a0d.pyo # Python 2.6 -O
        f2d20a0d.pyc # Python 2.6 -U
        0c4f0a0d.pyc # Python 3.1


Python behavior
===============

When Python searches for a module to import (say `foo`), it may find
one of several situations.  As per current Python rules, the term
"matching pyc" means that the magic number matches the current
interpreter's magic number, and the source file is not newer than the
`pyc` file.

When Python finds a `foo.py` file for which no `foo.pyc` file or
`foo.pyr` directory exists, Python will by default load the `foo.py`
file and write a `foo.pyc` file next to the source file.  This is
unchanged from current behavior.

When the Python executable is given a `-R` flag, or the environment
variable `$PYTHONPYR` is set, then Python will create a `foo.pyr`
directory and write a `pyc` file to that directory with the hexlified
magic number as the base name.

If during import, Python finds an existing `pyc` file but no `pyr`
directory, and the `$PYTHONPYR` environment variable is not set, then
the `pyc` file is loaded as normal and no `pyr` directory is created.

If during import, Python finds a `pyr` directory with a matching `pyc`
file, *regardless of whether `$PYTHONPYR` is set or not*, then
`foo.pyr/<magic>.pyc` is loaded and import completes successfully.
Thus a matching `pyc` file inside a `pyr` directory always takes
precedence over a sibling `pyc` file.

If during import, Python finds a `pyr` directory that does not contain
a matching `pyc` file, and no sibling `foo.pyc` file exists, Python
will load the source file and write a sibling `foo.pyc` file, unless
the `-R` flag is given in which case a `foo.pyr/<magic>.pyc` file will
be written.

Here is a flowchart illustrating the rules.

.. image:: pep-3147-1.png
   :scale: 75


Effects on non-conforming Python versions
=========================================

Python implementations which don't know anything about `pyr`
directories will ignore them.  This means that they will read and
write `pyc` files as usual.  A conforming implementation will still
prefer any existing `foo.pyr/<magic>.pyc` file over an existing
sibling `pyc` file.

The one possible conflicting state is where a sibling `pyc` file
exists, but its magic number does not match.

In the default case, when Python finds a `pyc` file with a
non-matching magic number, it simply overwrites the `pyc` file with
the new byte code and magic number.  In the absence of the `-R` flag,
this remains unchanged.  When the `-R` flag was given, the
non-matching sibling `pyc` file is ignored - it is neither removed nor
overwritten - and a `foo.pyr/<magic>.pyc` file is written instead.


Implementation strategy
=======================

This feature is targeted for Python 3.2, solving the problem for those
and all future versions.  It may be back-ported to Python 2.7.
Vendors are free to backport the changes to earlier distributions as
they see fit.


Alternatives
============

PEP 304
-------

There is some overlap between the goals of this PEP and PEP 304 [12]_,
which has been withdrawn.  However PEP 304 would allow a user to
create a shadow file system hierarchy in which to store `pyc` files.
This concept of a shadow hierarchy for `pyc` files could be used to
satisfy the aims of this PEP.  Although the PEP 304 does not indicate
why it was withdrawn, shadow directories have a number of problems.
The location of the shadow `pyc` files would not be easily discovered
and would depend on the proper and consistent use of the
`$PYTHONBYTECODE` environment variable both by the system and by end
users.  There are also global implications, meaning that while the
system might want to shadow `pyc` files, users might not want to, but
the PEP defines only an all-or-nothing approach.

As an example of the problem, a common (though fragile) Python idiom
for locating data files is to do something like this::

    from os import dirname, join
    import foo.bar
    data_file = join(dirname(foo.bar.__file__), 'my.dat')

This would be problematic since `foo.bar.__file__` will give the
location of the `pyc` file in the shadow directory, and it may not be
possible to find the `my.dat` file relative to the source directory
from there.

On the other hand, PEP 999 keeps all byte code artifacts co-located
with the source file.  Some adjustment will have to be made for the
fact that the `pyc` file lives in a subdirectory.  For example, in
current Python, when you import a module, its `__file__` attribute
points to its `pyc` file.  A package's `__file__` points to the `pyc`
file for its `__init__.py`.  E.g.::

    >>> import foo
    >>> foo.__file__
    'foo.pyc'
    # baz is a package
    >>> import baz
    >>> baz.__file__
    'baz/__init__.pyc'

The implementation of PEP 999 would have to ensure that the same
directory level is returned from `__file__` as it does without the
`pyr` directory, so that the common idiom above continues to work::

    >>> import foo
    >>> foo.__file__
    'foo.pyr'
    # baz is a package
    >>> import baz
    >>> baz.__file__
    'baz/__init__.pyr'

Note that some existing Python code only checks for `.py` and `.pyc`
file extensions (and possibly `.pyo`).  These would have to be
extended to also check for `.pyr` extensions.


Fat byte compilation files
--------------------------

An earlier version of this PEP described "fat" Python byte code files.
These files would contain the equivalent of multiple `pyc` files in a
single `pyf` file, with a lookup table keyed off the appropriate magic
number.  This was an extensible file format so that the first 5
parallel Python implementations could be supported fairly efficiently,
but with extension lookup tables available to scale `pyf` byte code
objects as large as necessary.

The fat byte compilation files were fairly complex, so the current
simplification of using directories was suggested.


Multiple file extensions
------------------------

The PEP author also considered an approach where multiple thin byte
compiled files lived in the same place, but used different file
extensions to designate the Python version.  E.g. foo.pyc25,
foo.pyc26, foo.pyc31 etc.  This was rejected because of the clutter
involved in writing so many different files.  The multiple extension
approach makes it more difficult (and an ongoing task) to update any
tools that are dependent on the file extension.


Open questions
==============

* Are there any concurrency issues added by this PEP, above those that
  already exist?  For example, what if two Python processes attempt to
  write the same `<magic>.pyc` file?  Is that any different than two
  Python processes trying to write to the same `foo.pyc` file?
  Current thinking is that there isn't since the exclusive open
  mechanism currently used, will still be used to open `pyc` files
  inside a `pyr` directory.

* How do the imp [13]_ and importlib [14]_ modules need to be updated
  to conform to the `pyr` directories?

* What about `py` source files that are compatible with most but not
  all installed Python versions.  We might need a way to say "this py
  file should be hidden from Python versions X.Y or earlier".  There
  are three options:

  - Use file system tricks to only share py files that are actually
    sharable in all installed Python versions (e.g. different search
    directories for Python X.Y and Python X.Z).
  - Introduce Python syntax that is legal before __future__ imports
    and is evaluated to determine if the py file is compatible,
    raising an `ImportError('no module named foo')` if not.
  - Add an optional metadata file co-located with the py file that
    declares which Python versions it is compatible with.

  How does this requirement interact with PEP 382 namespace packages [15]_?

* Are there any opportunities for also sharing extension modules
  (.so/.dll files) in a `pyr` directory?

* Would a moratorium on byte code changes, similar to the language
  moratorium described in PEP 3003 [16]_ be a better approach to
  pursue, and would that solve the problem for vendors?  At the time
  of this writing, PEP 3003 is silent on the issue.


Reference implementation
========================

TBD


References
==========

.. [1] PEP 3146

.. [2] Ubuntu: <http://www.ubuntu.com>

.. [3] Debian: <http://www.debian.org>

.. [4] Debian Python Policy:
   http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/python-policy/

.. [5] import.c:
   http://svn.python.org/view/python/branches/py3k/Python/import.c?view=markup

.. [6] PEP 384

.. [7] python-support:
   http://wiki.debian.org/DebianPythonFAQ#Whatispython-support.3F

.. [8] python-central:
   http://wiki.debian.org/DebianPythonFAQ#Whatispython-central.3F

.. [9] http://www.filesuffix.com/?m=search&e=pyr&submit=Search

.. [10] binascii.hexlify():
   http://www.python.org/doc/current/library/binascii.html#binascii.hexlify

.. [11] The marshal module:
   http://www.python.org/doc/current/library/marshal.html

.. [12] PEP 304:

.. [13] imp: http://www.python.org/doc/current/library/imp.html

.. [14] importlib: http://docs.python.org/3.1/library/importlib.html

.. [15] PEP 382

.. [16] PEP 3003


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
===============

Barry Warsaw's original idea was for fat Python byte code files.
Martin von Loewis reviewed an early draft of the PEP and suggested the
simplification to store traditional `pyc` and `pyo` files in a
directory.  Many other people reviewed early versions of this PEP and
provided useful feedback including:

* David Malcolm
* Josselin Mouette
* Matthias Klose
* Michael Hudson
* Michael Vogt
* Piotr Ożarowski
* Scott Kitterman
* Toshio Kuratomi


Copyright
=========

This document has been placed in the public domain.



..
   Local Variables:
   mode: indented-text
   indent-tabs-mode: nil
   sentence-end-double-space: t
   fill-column: 70
   coding: utf-8
   End: