Hi,
sorry for asking here instead of filing a bug, but given that 3.2 final is
pretty close, I wanted to make sure this gets considered.
A Cython user noticed that the installation (setup.py install or bdist)
puts several .pyc files into the installed source directory, instead of
moving
sorry for asking here instead of filing a bug, but given that 3.2 final
is pretty close, I wanted to make sure this gets considered.
If you want it decided before the 3.2 release, it must be a
release-critical bug report in the tracker. Posting it here does not
make sure
it gets considered.
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Stefan Behnel stefan...@behnel.de wrote:
What I think is happening here, is that the normal import mechanism byte
compiles the 2to3 converted sources into the __pycache__ directory (when
invoked at extension building time), but then distutils' byte compilation
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 23:07:17 +1000
Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
While this is definitely untidy, it doesn't strike me as a release
blocker. More of a fix it in 3.2.1, since the status quo will
*work*, it just means the precompiled file will be ignored on first
execution with newer
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 08:09:12 +0100
Dirkjan Ochtman dirk...@ochtman.nl wrote:
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 00:17, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
I think it's fair to say that the project currently rests, lacking
a project lead. The most recent timeline is that conversion should
be
Am 19.02.2011 14:14, schrieb Antoine Pitrou:
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 23:07:17 +1000
Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
While this is definitely untidy, it doesn't strike me as a release
blocker. More of a fix it in 3.2.1, since the status quo will
*work*, it just means the precompiled file
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 11:14 PM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 23:07:17 +1000
Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
While this is definitely untidy, it doesn't strike me as a release
blocker. More of a fix it in 3.2.1, since the status quo will
*work*, it
Le samedi 19 février 2011 à 14:27 +0100, Martin v. Löwis a écrit :
Am 19.02.2011 14:14, schrieb Antoine Pitrou:
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 23:07:17 +1000
Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
While this is definitely untidy, it doesn't strike me as a release
blocker. More of a fix it in
Ref: http://bugs.python.org/issue448679
Has this bug fixed already?
This bug seems not be fixed for Python 2.6 and Python 3.2rc3.
Python 3.2rc3 (r32rc3:88413, Feb 15 2011, 18:31:14)
[GCC 4.4.5] on linux2
Type help, copyright, credits or license for more information.
C=0
def x():
... global
Sorry. There is a issue already.
http://bugs.python.org/issue11205
On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 1:19 AM, INADA Naoki songofaca...@gmail.com wrote:
Ref: http://bugs.python.org/issue448679
Has this bug fixed already?
This bug seems not be fixed for Python 2.6 and Python 3.2rc3.
Python 3.2rc3
INADA Sorry. There is a issue already.
INADA http://bugs.python.org/issue11205
From Raymond's last comment on the above ticket:
How much to change and how far to backport may make for a good python-dev
discussion.
I think the simple patch I posted for 2.7 is probably all that should
Am 19.02.2011 14:29, schrieb Nick Coghlan:
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 11:14 PM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 23:07:17 +1000
Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
While this is definitely untidy, it doesn't strike me as a release
blocker. More of a fix it in
On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 6:53 AM, Georg Brandl g.bra...@gmx.net wrote:
Given that we are only hours from the final, I'm quite unwilling to
call this a blocker, seeing that running from the .py file works well
(and I'm not really of Antoine's opinion that that is such a big
performance hit).
Hello,
I've encountered a strange bug that appears to be either in gcc's gomp
implementation or in how python loads extension modules linked against
gomp. Here's the error:
Using gcc (multiple versions) on linux, I compile an empty c extension
module and pass -lgomp as a linker arg. If I
On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Hoyt Koepke hoy...@stat.washington.edu wrote:
I'd be happy to provide any more information if needed. I attached
example code that reproduces it. Let me know if I should file a bug
report (and where to file it -- which is why I haven't yet).
An associated bug
I've got a feeling that policy is evil and can not be applied cleanly
when change falls out of scope of Python core .c sources and .py files
from standard library.
Right now the proposal is to add Python to %PATH% to make Python more
user friendly for newbies. I can't see what can become worse
Python definitely needs a development Roadmap to avoid things like
w9xpopen.exe slipping off radar from release to release. We don't
support Windows 9x since Python 2.6. What this file does in 3.x
distributions?
http://bugs.python.org/issue2405
--
anatoly t.
17 matches
Mail list logo
