Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.5.1 error when running cvs2svn [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Paul> import zlib Paul> ImportError: ld.so.1: python: fatal: relocation error: file Paul> /usr/local/lib/python2.5/lib-dynload/zlib.so: symbol inflateCopy: Paul> referenced symbol not found Paul, Try running ldd /usr/local/lib/python2.5/lib-dynload/zlib.so I'll wager

[Python-Dev] Python 2.5.1 error when running cvs2svn [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Hello python-dev, We are trying to run the cvs2svn utility and get an execution problem coming from Python. The version of Python we have installed on a solaris sparc10 machine is 2.5.1. The error trace is below, the error is at end in blue- Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr

Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.5.1 ported to z/OS and EBCDIC

"Lauri Alanko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | All this just shows that treating plain octet sequences as "strings" | simply won't work in the long run. You have to have separate type for | _textual_ data (i.e. Unicode strings, in Python), and encode and decode | bet

Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.5.1 ported to z/OS and EBCDIC

Lauri Alanko wrote: > In the end, for now, I made protocol 0 textual, That could be a mistake. I believe there are some objects, such as array.array, that use a binary format for pickling even in protocol 0. -- Greg ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-De

[Python-Dev] Python 2.5.1 ported to z/OS and EBCDIC

Hello. Based on Jean-Yves Mengant's work on previous versions, I have ported Python 2.5.1 to z/OS. A patch against current svn head is attached to . The same patch should work with very little changes also against pristine 2.5.1 sources. (The only failing hunk is

Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.5.1

> Would tests that use ctypes do do the open directly be acceptable ways > of solving this? If it solves it - sure. Regards, Martin ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http:/

Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.5.1

On 5/1/07, Kristján Valur Jónsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hm, I fail to see the importance of a special regression test for that > peculiar file then with its special magical OS properties. Why not focus > our attention on real, user generated files?. (Try to stick to the posting conventions

Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.5.1

Kristján Valur Jónsson schrieb: > Hm, I fail to see the importance of a special regression test for that > peculiar file then with its special magical OS properties. Why not focus > our attention on real, user generated files?. Because real users really had real problems with this very real file,

Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.5.1

Hm, I fail to see the importance of a special regression test for that peculiar file then with its special magical OS properties. Why not focus our attention on real, user generated files?. -Original Message- Wow, I'm very sorry, I didn't realize how much special pagefile.sys and hiberfi

Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.5.1

On 5/1/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That code only tests it for pagefile.sys. My question was about open > handles in general. Both Calvin Spealman and I found that you cannot > reproduce the problem when you, in Python 2.5.0, open a file, and then > try to os.stat() it - even

Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.5.1

Alexey Borzenkov schrieb: > On 5/1/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > After doing some research I found that it seems to be impossible to >> > use CreateFile for a file that doesn't have SHARE_READ. >> So what about GetFileAttributesEx? What are the conditions under which >> I ca

Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.5.1

On 5/1/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > After doing some research I found that it seems to be impossible to > > use CreateFile for a file that doesn't have SHARE_READ. I played with > > different combinations and with FLAG_BACKUP_SEMANTICS and nothing > > helped. However on Wind

Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.5.1

> After doing some research I found that it seems to be impossible to > use CreateFile for a file that doesn't have SHARE_READ. I played with > different combinations and with FLAG_BACKUP_SEMANTICS and nothing > helped. However on Windows there's still a possibility to read > attributes: use FindFi

Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.5.1

Hi Martin, On 4/29/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The error Windows reports is ERROR_SHARING_VIOLATION. I never > understood sharing fully, but it may be that if the file is opened > in "exclusive sharing", stat'ing it may fail. Sharing is actually very easy. If you didn't spe

[Python-Dev] Python 2.5.1

All test_os tests pass for me now on WinXP under MinGW. Please see http://.python.org/sf/1709112 for details and patches. Regards, Khalid __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.5.1

On 4/29/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Calvin Spealman schrieb: > > On 4/29/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Right. It shouldn't fail if the file is absent (it shouldn't > >> pass in that case, either, but regrtest has no support for INCONCLUSIVE > >> test o

Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.5.1

Calvin Spealman schrieb: > On 4/29/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Right. It shouldn't fail if the file is absent (it shouldn't >> pass in that case, either, but regrtest has no support for INCONCLUSIVE >> test outcomes). > > Perhaps that could become part of the improvements m

Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.5.1

On 4/29/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Right. It shouldn't fail if the file is absent (it shouldn't > pass in that case, either, but regrtest has no support for INCONCLUSIVE > test outcomes). Perhaps that could become part of the improvements made through test.test_support.Test

Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.5.1

>> > The >> > original test failed, my new one does not. >> >> Then this change is incorrect: the test should fail in 2.5.0. > > I think I don't get why the test _must_ fail. If it fails, I assumed > something was broken. Correct. That is the whole point of this patch: It fixes a bug in 2.5.0, an

Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.5.1

On 4/29/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The > > original test failed, my new one does not. > > Then this change is incorrect: the test should fail in 2.5.0. I think I don't get why the test _must_ fail. If it fails, I assumed something was broken. If it failed because it was t

Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.5.1

>> And you saw your test pass? Then it is not a valid test case for >> the >> bug being test, because the bug is present in 2.5.0, so your >> test case should fail there. >> > > I think I'm a little confused. Are you saying the original test > should fail for me or that the test I changed it to s

Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.5.1

On 4/29/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> As I said - I'm not convinced that is indeed correct. Before accepting > >> a replacement test I would like confirmation that this test will fail > >> on 2.5.0. You might not get ERROR_SHARING_VIOLATION in all cases of > >> open files wi

Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.5.1

>> As I said - I'm not convinced that is indeed correct. Before accepting >> a replacement test I would like confirmation that this test will fail >> on 2.5.0. You might not get ERROR_SHARING_VIOLATION in all cases of >> open files with 2.5.0. > > But i am running 2.5.0 during my entire writing of

Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.5.1

> Some record of this or documentation of just what conditions the tests > are expecting to test against would probably be a good idea. There is the sourceforge tracker item. If that is insufficient, feel free to add more information. Regards, Martin __

Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.5.1

On 4/29/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Windows there is no guarantee that there will be a pagefile.sys on > > the C drive, or even that there exists a C drive. The test checking for > > the result of os.stat('C:\\pagefile.sys') is broken. Create a temporary > > file, open

Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.5.1

On 4/29/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm sorry, but somehow I could not parse this. My understanding was > > that the unittest was meant to make sure an os.stat call would be > > successful on an open file, and that pagefile.sys was simply used as a > > known open file, whic

Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.5.1

> On Windows there is no guarantee that there will be a pagefile.sys on > the C drive, or even that there exists a C drive. The test checking for > the result of os.stat('C:\\pagefile.sys') is broken. Create a temporary > file, open it with Python, then stat it (like you later suggest). > Either

Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.5.1

Khalid A. Bakr schrieb: > For reference, this is the result of running the > regression tests of the official Python 2.5.1 (final) > on Win98. I think I saw it in the installtion screen > that Python 2.5 is the last release to support Win98. > > Even though the unicode tests failing might be > ex

Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.5.1

> After some googling it seems to me that this could > likely be a User Rights Assignment issue of a systems > file not an open file stat one, hence the Access > denied error message (winerror 5) that I got in WinXP, > as opposed to the File not found windows error > (winerror 2) which one might ex

Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.5.1

> I'm sorry, but somehow I could not parse this. My understanding was > that the unittest was meant to make sure an os.stat call would be > successful on an open file, and that pagefile.sys was simply used as a > known open file, which is no longer correct. No. The unit test was meant to test tha

Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.5.1

"Khalid A. Bakr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There must be more to the problem than just an open > > file. Please undo the change that triggered the > > addition of the test, and see whether you > > can reproduce the original problem with a

[Python-Dev] Python 2.5.1

For reference, this is the result of running the regression tests of the official Python 2.5.1 (final) on Win98. I think I saw it in the installtion screen that Python 2.5 is the last release to support Win98. Even though the unicode tests failing might be expected, what interested me was the fac

Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.5.1

--- "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There must be more to the problem than just an open > file. Please undo the change that triggered the > addition of the test, and see whether you > can reproduce the original problem with an arbitrary > open file (I > could trigger the problem wit

Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.5.1

On 4/28/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I have a patch myself that creates an open file and uses that as the > > test. My reasoning is that pagefile.sys was chosen as a file that > > should always exist and be open, so its safe to test against, so we > > should just be testing

Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.5.1

> I have a patch myself that creates an open file and uses that as the > test. My reasoning is that pagefile.sys was chosen as a file that > should always exist and be open, so its safe to test against, so we > should just be testing against a fixture, instead. It is here, and if > someone would re

Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.5.1

On 4/28/07, Jean-Paul Calderone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 09:32:57 -0400, Raghuram Devarakonda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >On 4/28/07, Calvin Spealman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Index: test_os.py > >> =

Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.5.1

On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 09:32:57 -0400, Raghuram Devarakonda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On 4/28/07, Calvin Spealman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Index: test_os.py >> === >> --- test_os.py (revision 54982) >> +++ test_os.py (working co

Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.5.1

On 4/28/07, Calvin Spealman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Index: test_os.py > === > --- test_os.py (revision 54982) > +++ test_os.py (working copy) > @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ > import unittest > import warnings > import sys > +import tempfi

Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.5.1

On 4/27/07, Khalid A. Bakr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Okay. It seems I mixed up WindowsError with the > exception e in my post; at least it is now known that > e is not a number. The patch is short and is as > follows: > > Index: Lib/test/test_os.py > =

Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.5.1

--- "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Or do I need to submit this through sourceforge? > > Please do. Why are you checking for error 2, though, > if the error that occurs is 5? > > Regards, > Martin > > Done. I was just correcting the previous posted check for error 2; I thou

Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.5.1

> Or do I need to submit this through sourceforge? Please do. Why are you checking for error 2, though, if the error that occurs is 5? Regards, Martin ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev

[Python-Dev] Python 2.5.1

--- "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Khalid A. Bakr schrieb: > > 1. The bz2 archive ships with > > \Modules\collectionsmodule.c instead of the > > \Modules\_collectionsmodule.c used in the 2.5 SVN > > branch. In fact the collectionsmodule.c was > removed > > some time ago. > > Why

Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.5.1

Khalid A. Bakr schrieb: > 1. The bz2 archive ships with > \Modules\collectionsmodule.c instead of the > \Modules\_collectionsmodule.c used in the 2.5 SVN > branch. In fact the collectionsmodule.c was removed > some time ago. Why do you say that? http://svn.python.org/projects/python/branches/rele

[Python-Dev] Python 2.5.1

Hello I downloaded Python's 2.5.1 (final) bz2 source archive the other day to try to compile it in MinGW. I have noted down the following observations that might be of interest. 1. The bz2 archive ships with \Modules\collectionsmodule.c instead of the \Modules\_collectionsmodule.c used in the 2.