Unless this is considered a regression... On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 12:51 PM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think it crosses the line. > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 2:55 AM, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I need a release manager call on whether or not the proposed resolution >> of this issue goes beyond what is acceptable for a bug fix in 2.6.1. >> >> Short version: >> - Python 2.5 allowed packages to be executed with -m, but in a broken way >> - I disabled the broken way for 2.6, but didn't provide a replacement >> - The patch attached to 4195 once again allows execution of packages >> with -m, but in a clean way similar to the way directories and zipfiles >> can now be executed >> - I would like to commit that patch for 3.0/2.6.1, but I'm concerned >> that it crosses the "no new features" line >> >> Long version: >> >> There was a bug in python 2.5 that allowed a package name to be passed >> to the -m switch or runpy.run_module() and it would mostly work. >> >> However, the 'mostly' was due to the fact that doing this put the >> internal import machinery into a slightly inconsistent state: the >> interpreter was running code from inside a package, but that package >> wasn't actually present in sys.modules. This could lead to assorted hard >> to trace import-related weirdness, similar to what you can get when >> executing a file from inside a package by name. You would often get away >> with it, but good luck figuring out what is happening if things go wrong >> (and you aren't already an expert on Python import mechanics). >> >> Since the ability to execute packages wasn't intentional, I added the >> missing check to block it explicitly in 2.6 (but left it alone for 2.5). >> It seemed like a really niche feature, so I didn't figure out a clean >> replacement for it at the time. >> >> Benjamin noticed this change earlier in the 2.6 release cycle, I pointed >> out it was a deliberate change, and that's the way it stayed until after >> 2.6 was released. >> >> After the release, Andi Vajda (from the JCC project [1]) contacted me, >> and together we worked out a better implementation of package support >> for the -m switch (and runpy.run_module) [2] by extending the >> __main__.py approach used to support direct execution of zipfiles and >> directories [3]. >> >> That's what I would like to add, since it nicely complements the ability >> to execute zipfiles and directories, while also restoring the ability to >> pass a package name to the -m switch (but in a way that keeps the import >> machinery in a consistent state). >> >> Cheers, >> Nick. >> >> [1] http://pypi.python.org/pypi/JCC >> >> [2] http://bugs.python.org/issue4195 (package execution with -m) >> [3] http://bugs.python.org/issue1739468 (zipfile execution) >> >> -- >> Nick Coghlan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Brisbane, Australia >> --------------------------------------------------------------- >> _______________________________________________ >> Python-Dev mailing list >> Python-Dev@python.org >> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev >> Unsubscribe: >> http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/guido%40python.org >> > > > > -- > --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list > Python-Dev@python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: > http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/dalcinl%40gmail.com >
-- Lisandro Dalcín --------------- Centro Internacional de Métodos Computacionales en Ingeniería (CIMEC) Instituto de Desarrollo Tecnológico para la Industria Química (INTEC) Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET) PTLC - Güemes 3450, (3000) Santa Fe, Argentina Tel/Fax: +54-(0)342-451.1594 _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
