bpo-46608: exclude marshalled-frozen data if deep-freezing to save 300 KB space

[kumaraditya303]

This reduces the size of the data segment by 300 KB of the executable because if the modules are deep-frozen then the marshalled frozen data just wastes space. This was inspired by comment by @gvanrossum in #29118 (comment). Note: There is a new option --deepfreeze-only in freeze_modules.py to change this behavior, it is on be default to save disk space.

# du -s ./python before
27892   ./python
# du -s ./python after
27524   ./python

https://bugs.python.org/issue46608

Automerge-Triggered-By: GH:ericsnowcurrently

[kumaraditya303]

I added is_package field to _frozen struct to differentiate between package and module as the struct is private (prefixed with underscore).

[gvanrossum]

Hopefully @ericsnowcurrently can review this -- he should know about use cases where this might break.

[ericsnowcurrently]

Other than one small thing, this is looking good. (The PR is marked as "Draft". Are you planning on changing anything?)

[bedevere-bot]

A Python core developer has requested some changes be made to your pull request before we can consider merging it. If you could please address their requests along with any other requests in other reviews from core developers that would be appreciated.

Once you have made the requested changes, please leave a comment on this pull request containing the phrase I have made the requested changes; please review again. I will then notify any core developers who have left a review that you're ready for them to take another look at this pull request.

[bedevere-bot]

Thanks for making the requested changes!

@ericsnowcurrently: please review the changes made to this pull request.

[ericsnowcurrently]

With a few small tweaks, this is ready to go.

[bedevere-bot]

A Python core developer has requested some changes be made to your pull request before we can consider merging it. If you could please address their requests along with any other requests in other reviews from core developers that would be appreciated.

Once you have made the requested changes, please leave a comment on this pull request containing the phrase I have made the requested changes; please review again. I will then notify any core developers who have left a review that you're ready for them to take another look at this pull request.

[ericsnowcurrently]

LGTM

Thanks for working on this, Kumar!

[miss-islington]

@kumaraditya303: Status check is done, and it's a failure ❌ .

[miss-islington]

@kumaraditya303: Status check is done, and it's a failure ❌ .

[miss-islington]

@kumaraditya303: Status check is done, and it's a failure ❌ .

[gvanrossum]

I don't follow the logic of the argument parsing, and I have one small grammar tweak. Otherwise LGTM!

[miss-islington]

@kumaraditya303: Status check is done, and it's a success ✅ .