Lars Gustäbel l...@gustaebel.de added the comment:
Any idea why the 2.x buildbots aren't failing? The code is basically the
same. Coincidence?
The patch is okay. Still, I have attached another version of it with a
slightly smaller try-except clause. Is it feasible to test if the patch
actually
Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr added the comment:
Le mercredi 18 novembre 2009 à 12:11 +, Lars Gustäbel a écrit :
Lars Gustäbel l...@gustaebel.de added the comment:
Any idea why the 2.x buildbots aren't failing? The code is basically the
same. Coincidence?
No, the difference is that
Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com added the comment:
I can run a test on my buildbot - but I may not have a chance until
tomorrow. I'll do that and report back unless someone else reports
that they have managed to run a test before me.
--
___
Python
Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr added the comment:
Still, I have attached another version of it with a
slightly smaller try-except clause. Is it feasible to test if the patch
actually solves the problem?
Yes, it does.
--
___
Python tracker
Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com added the comment:
I can confirm it fixes the issue, too.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue7341
___
Lars Gustäbel l...@gustaebel.de added the comment:
Alright then. I applied the change to the trunk (r76381) and py3k
(r76383). What about release26-maint and release31-maint? IMO this is
not necessary.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
Lars Gustäbel l...@gustaebel.de added the comment:
I have always tried to be very conservative with backporting stuff that
is not clearly a bugfix but alters any kind of behaviour. I am always
very concerned about compatibility, especially if code has been around
for as long as this code has.
Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr added the comment:
I have always tried to be very conservative with backporting stuff that
is not clearly a bugfix but alters any kind of behaviour. I am always
very concerned about compatibility, especially if code has been around
for as long as this code has.
Lars Gustäbel l...@gustaebel.de added the comment:
Mmm, chocolate... ;-)
Okay, consider it done.
--
resolution: - accepted
status: open - closed
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue7341
New submission from Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com:
Windows 3.x buildbots are failing in test_tarfile.
The problem, as best I can diagnose it, appears to be a failure
somewhere in the tarfile module to close files on exceptions. The error
is WindowsError: [Error 32] The process cannot access
Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr added the comment:
This is a problem in the Tarfile class, which keeps the underlying
`fileobj` open even when the constructor fails. Here is a possible patch.
--
assignee: - lars.gustaebel
keywords: +patch
nosy: +lars.gustaebel, pitrou
stage: - patch
11 matches
Mail list logo