This bug was fixed in the package python2.7 - 2.7.18-1~20.04.4
---
python2.7 (2.7.18-1~20.04.4) focal; urgency=medium
* Add d/p/add-optimization-flags-to-cflags.diff: Add optimization flags to
cflags when compiling C modules. (LP: #2002043)
-- Mitchell Dzurick Wed, 31 Jan
This bug was fixed in the package python2.7 - 2.7.18-13ubuntu1.2
---
python2.7 (2.7.18-13ubuntu1.2) jammy; urgency=medium
* Add d/p/add-optimization-flags-to-cflags.diff: Add optimization flags to
cflags when compiling C modules. (LP: #2002043)
-- Mitchell Dzurick Sun, 15
Ran the autopkgtest on a new PPA with my changes enabled by default and
the test still fails[0]. I believe this is fine enough to ignore simply
because this test has always been failing like this.
[0] - https://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/results/autopkgtest-jammy-mitchdz-
python2.7-opt-test-enabled-
The only focal autopkgtest that really has me confused in the python2.7
failure. This is due to a unit test that fails. The strange thing is
that this unit test actually fails in the Jammy autopkgtest, but the
Jammy autopkgtest passes anyways. It has always been like this.
You will see
1643s
i took a look at the other focal packages and put my thoughts.
RELEASE=focal
TRIGGER=python2.7/2.7.18-1~20.04.4
release arch packageversion exitcode
triggersrequester
--- --- -
Hi Andreas, the test_customize_compiler flag test has always failed. I'm
curious about why it's failing but the autopkgtest as a whole is
passing.
In fact, the same failures occur for both jammy/focal since forever -
yet they seem to be the reason w hy the Focal autopkgtest fails, whereas
Jammy
Checking the jammy amd64 autopkgtest runs[1], we can see that the top
most one is the run for this sru. Its log[2] is showing, at the end, a
good run, but if you look more carefully, there are some test failures
that apparently are being ignored.
In particular:
1910s
Taking a look at another focal result from the table in comment 49:
focal amd64 pam-python 1.0.7-1ubuntu1 4 python2.7/2.7.18-1~20.04.4
No hints in the hints-ubuntu repository, focal branch.
But there is a migration-reference/0 run that failed that exact same
version:
1.0.7-1ubuntu1
> So that would explain it not being flagged for s390x, but not for amd64. I'm
> still puzzled: I didn't find
> another hint.
Ah, it's because of a migration-reference/0 run from last year:
5.3.1-1ubuntu1 migration-reference/0 None2023-06-20 09:25:36 UTC
0h 37m 11s schopin fail
I grabbed one of the focal failures from comment #49, mercurial:
focal amd64 mercurial 5.3.1-1ubuntu1 4 python2.7/2.7.18-1~20.04.4
That is indeed mostly red in [1], including the recent run with
python2.7 from this SRU.
And it's not showing up as a failure in the excuses[2] report.
But it's
No problem, Mitchell!
Yes, the point pending from comment #44 (.3) is resolved for Jammy per
#48 (so Jammy should be OK, AFAICT), and pending for Focal per #49
(being addressed per #50; thanks!).
Please note that other SRU vanguards may have a different opinion (or
raise other points I may have
Thanks a ton Mauricio! Would we be good to start phasing the Jammy
package then while I investigate the Focal failures? I'll start taking a
look at Focal today.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to python2.7 in
Hi Mitchell,
Indeed, there are some autopkgtests results/failures that are not
reported in pending-sru or update_excuses -- this is the case specially
for Focal (Jammy looks good).
I downloaded the autopkgtest.db from autopkgtest.ubuntu.com, and locally
queried it.
The test results with
RELEASE=jammy
TRIGGER=python2.7/2.7.18-13ubuntu1.2
sqlite3 autopkgtest.db -column -header \
"SELECT test.release, test.arch, test.package, "\
" result.version, result.exitcode, "\
" result.triggers, result.requester "\
"FROM test, result "\
"WHERE test.id = result.test_id "\
"AND
RELEASE=focal
TRIGGER=python2.7/2.7.18-1~20.04.4
sqlite3 autopkgtest.db -column -header \
"SELECT test.release, test.arch, test.package, "\
" result.version, result.exitcode, "\
" result.triggers, result.requester "\
"FROM test, result "\
"WHERE test.id = result.test_id "\
"AND
Hey Mitchell,
No, the autopkgtests re-run for python2.7/focal are done and OK ('they continue
to fail').
Link: [1] (see the Focal results on diff archs have 'migration-reference/0' and
'mfo').
The autopkgtests point pending is a clarification on the
database/results, ie, whether we can trust
mfo: thanks for catching the ctrlc+ctrlv error! It sounds like we are
just waiting to re-run the autopkgtest then.
Let me know if you would like any additional testing from me!
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to
Just a few observations before release.
1) The verification for Jammy apparently has a copy-paste error,
as the banner about the env var is present (step 5) _before_ the
package from -proposed -- which adds it -- is installed (step 6).
To be clear, this is not a problem and should not block the
Attached is my manual verification steps of testing the proposed package
for Focal.
Package version tested: 2.7.18-1~20.04.4
Part of the verification process is to ensure no regressions happen in
no-change rebuilds of the current wheels compiled with python2.7 in our
archives. It was determined
Attached is my manual verification steps of testing the proposed package
for Jammy.
Package version 2.7.18-13ubuntu1.2
Part of the verification process is to ensure no regressions happen in
no-change rebuilds of the current wheels compiled with python2.7 in our
archives. It was determined that
You can add something obvious, like -DMITCHELL_WAS_HERE :)
On Thu, 8 Feb 2024, 18:35 Mitchell Dzurick, <2002...@bugs.launchpad.net>
wrote:
> That's a great idea Andreas! It's a little difficult to pinpoint the
> exact OPT flags as they are bunched up with the other compiler flags, so
> I'll add
That's a great idea Andreas! It's a little difficult to pinpoint the
exact OPT flags as they are bunched up with the other compiler flags, so
I'll add a test in addition to the current ones which makes it easier to
see what's happening.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a
Hello Nafees, or anyone else affected,
Accepted python2.7 into focal-proposed. The package will build now and
be available at
https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/python2.7/2.7.18-1~20.04.4 in a few
hours, and then in the -proposed repository.
Please help us by testing this new package. See
Maybe it's just me, but could we please clarify in the test plan exactly
what flag changes are we expecting? Given the change is to honor or not
the "OPT" flags, I was expecting an additional test plan that would set
those, and then show that they are included when the workaround var is
set.
Hello Nafees, or anyone else affected,
Accepted python2.7 into jammy-proposed. The package will build now and
be available at
https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/python2.7/2.7.18-13ubuntu1.2 in a
few hours, and then in the -proposed repository.
Please help us by testing this new package. See
** Merge proposal linked:
https://code.launchpad.net/~mitchdz/ubuntu/+source/python2.7/+git/python2.7/+merge/459844
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to python2.7 in Ubuntu.
** Description changed:
[ Impact ]
When compiling Python extensions using Python2, CFLAGS optimization
flags are dropped.
This behavior has been caused by our update in this patch
http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/universe/p/python2.7/python2.7_2.7.18-1~20.04.3.diff.gz
Description Updated. I'll work on getting the patch for Jammy approved
and then I will create the patch for Focal. I expect (and would love)
feedback on wording for the new print statements I made.
** Description changed:
- Compiling a Python extension using Python2 (Python 2.7.18) is making use
Thanks Nafees! I'll go ahead and prepare the SRU and move forward with
it.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to python2.7 in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2002043
Title:
Python extension modules get
Thanks Mitchell for looking into this. The proposed workaround looks
good to me.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to python2.7 in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2002043
Title:
Python extension modules
Nafees, while exploring adding this change, a priority is to not cause
any regressions in packages already built in the archives. This is
unfortunately a non-trivial change so I'm proposing making this an opt-
in change, but make an informative message whenever someone compiles
wheels, so they can
** Merge proposal linked:
https://code.launchpad.net/~mitchdz/ubuntu/+source/python2.7/+git/python2.7/+merge/458533
** Changed in: python2.7 (Ubuntu Jammy)
Assignee: Ghadi Rahme (ghadi-rahme) => Mitchell Dzurick (mitchdz)
** Changed in: python2.7 (Ubuntu Focal)
Assignee: Ghadi
Hi, I have the patch modified how I want it to, I'm still exploring ways
to blocklist the current launchpad builds, as I'm not sure I can extract
the necessary metadata in distutils.sysconfig.
I'll be exploring more next week and attempting to find a reliable way
to determine the name of the
I just want to check if there are any updates with this bug?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to python2.7 in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2002043
Title:
Python extension modules get built using
Hi Nafees, I discussed this with Mitchell and we are still looking into
the best possible way to move forward with this SRU. We'll keep this bug
update as soon as we have some more details to share.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages,
Hi Mitchell, Do you have any update for this bug?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to python2.7 in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2002043
Title:
Python extension modules get built using wrong compiler
Hi Nafees, I'll be looking into this bug. Planning to have some more
updates next week.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to python2.7 in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2002043
Title:
Python extension
@vorlon - adding to Fabio's question. I agree with your reasoning that
the workarounds should be reasonably easy for a knowledgeable user. We
should enable end users to apply the same fix since they may be affected
without realizing it. While we shouldn't encourage users to stay on 2.7,
there are
Hi Steve,
Would you and the SRU team reconsider the "won't fix" decision or
further elaborate on the regression problem, based on the comment above?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to python2.7 in Ubuntu.
Thanks for providing the workarounds. While the workarounds work in cases when
user is willing to compile extensions from the python package sources and aware
of these problems, for the most common cases work arounds are not feasible.
There are 100’s of python packages with extension modules
Another suggestion from one of our Engineers is that you can also set it
inside your python script, something like this:
```
from setuptools import setup, Extension
import sysconfig
extra_flags=sysconfig.get_config_var('CFLAGS').split()
setup(
name="test",
Alright, thanks for the information @Steve.
Hi @Nafees,
With the information above, it seems there's a regression risk if we fix
this bug in python2.7 in Focal, and the risk outstands the benefits of
the fix, as it seems to be an uncommon use-case and there's a workaround
for it, so we wouldn't
It is a legitimate bug.
"Legitimate bug" is not the threshold for an SRU. There are many
legitimate bugs that we decline to fix.
> Stable release updates are automatically recommended to a very large number
> of users, and so it is critically important to treat them with great caution.
>
It's also worth mentioning that, a patch was backported mentioning "#
DP: Allow setting BASECFLAGS, OPT and EXTRA_LDFLAGS (like, CC, CXX, CPP,
CFLAGS, CPPFLAGS, CCSHARED, LDSHARED) from the environment." [1], but
then OPT is not being added at all by the patch (which had just
mentioned adding it),
Hi Steve,
Thanks for looking into this SRU request.
Their original request was specifically to python2.7 on Ĵammy, which
matches your comment on the eligible releases.
The request is not to rebuild the python extensions, but to fix the
compiler so new modules getting compiled will inherit the
Reviewing this as part of the Sponsor process, but with my SRU Team hat
on.
The only releases python2.7 is present in which are still eligible for
SRUs are focal, jammy, and kinetic.
All of these releases post-date the demotion of python2.7 to universe.
No one should be deploying new code on
** Merge proposal unlinked:
https://code.launchpad.net/~dbungert/ubuntu-sponsoring/+git/ubuntu-sponsoring/+merge/446529
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to python2.7 in Ubuntu.
** Merge proposal linked:
https://code.launchpad.net/~dbungert/ubuntu-sponsoring/+git/ubuntu-sponsoring/+merge/446529
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to python2.7 in Ubuntu.
** Merge proposal unlinked:
https://code.launchpad.net/~dbungert/ubuntu-sponsoring/+git/ubuntu-sponsoring/+merge/446529
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to python2.7 in Ubuntu.
** Merge proposal linked:
https://code.launchpad.net/~dbungert/ubuntu-sponsoring/+git/ubuntu-sponsoring/+merge/446529
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to python2.7 in Ubuntu.
Thanks for the debdiffs, Ghadi! I've marked Bionic as Won't Fix, as the
release is not under standard support anymore. If this is needed for
18.04, please consider targeting it under the Ubuntu Pro project.
** Changed in: python2.7 (Ubuntu Bionic)
Status: In Progress => Won't Fix
** Patch
** Patch added: "[bionic]add-optimization-flags-to-cflags.diff"
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/python2.7/+bug/2002043/+attachment/5685152/+files/%5Bbionic%5Dadd-optimization-flags-to-cflags.diff
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded
The attachment "[focal]add-optimization-flags-to-cflags.diff" seems to
be a debdiff. The ubuntu-sponsors team has been subscribed to the bug
report so that they can review and hopefully sponsor the debdiff. If
the attachment isn't a patch, please remove the "patch" flag from the
attachment,
** Patch added: "[jammy]add-optimization-flags-to-cflags.diff"
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/python2.7/+bug/2002043/+attachment/5685116/+files/%5Bjammy%5Dadd-optimization-flags-to-cflags.diff
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded
** Patch added: "[kinetic]add-optimization-flags-to-cflags.diff"
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/python2.7/+bug/2002043/+attachment/5685117/+files/%5Bkinetic%5Dadd-optimization-flags-to-cflags.diff
** Changed in: python2.7 (Ubuntu Focal)
Importance: Undecided => High
** Changed
Hello,
Changes have been compiled and tested. This is the Focal patch and I
will be sending the jammy and kinetic patches in the subsequent
comments. The Bionic patch should be ready soon.
** Patch added: "[focal]add-optimization-flags-to-cflags.diff"
Won't fix Lunar nor Mantic since package is not available for these
releases
** Changed in: python2.7 (Ubuntu Lunar)
Status: In Progress => Won't Fix
** Also affects: python2.7 (Ubuntu Mantic)
Importance: Undecided
Assignee: Ghadi Rahme (ghadi-rahme)
Status: In Progress
**
Thanks for the update Fabio Martins !
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to python2.7 in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2002043
Title:
Python extension modules get built using wrong compiler flags with
Hi Nafees,
I've discussed this case with our Engineering team and they are working
on the SRU process to get this fix released, however this should take
around 1 month before it gets published to -updates. Although we are
prioritizing it, the fix still needs to go to the -proposed repository
for
Hi Ghadi Rahme,
I see this ticket is in progress, just want to check when the fix will be
updated in Ubuntu's packages?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to python2.7 in Ubuntu.
** Tags added: se-sponsor-halves
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to python2.7 in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2002043
Title:
Python extension modules get built using wrong compiler flags with
** Also affects: python2.7 (Ubuntu Focal)
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
** Also affects: python2.7 (Ubuntu Lunar)
Importance: Undecided
Assignee: Ghadi Rahme (ghadi-rahme)
Status: In Progress
** Also affects: python2.7 (Ubuntu Bionic)
Importance: Undecided
Hello Nafees,
The bug has been fixed and I am currently preparing a patch for it.
Thank you for reporting the issue.
Regards,
Ghadi Rahme
** Changed in: python2.7 (Ubuntu)
Assignee: (unassigned) => Ghadi Rahme (ghadi-rahme)
** Changed in: python2.7 (Ubuntu)
Status: New => In
@Nafees,
I'm sorry, I hadn't noticed that the file produced by python3 was
different (and I did have the test.so in my directory because I had
built it with python2 before, so I was just grepping the same file). I
see the problem now and I'm checking it with our Engineering team.
Regards,
Fabio
Thanks for looking into this. On python3, can we make sure if we are
looking into right output file?
>From your pasted output on Python3, I do see, there is -O2 but I see
from next command the query is against test.so file which seems
incorrect. From the compilation output, the file name when
Hi Nafees,
Thank you for the reproducer and instructions.
Per your comments, I would expect this to work well with python3 on
20.04, however, my tests indicated that python2 and python3 are both
behaving the same way. In the example below, I'm using python3 and I
also don't see the -O2
Hi Fabio Martins,
Thanks for looking into this issue. Attached tar file contains setup.py and
steps to reproduce the issue. In general, the behavior is same with any package
building with extensions.
** Attachment added: "testprog.tar.gz"
Hello Nafees,
Can you share this setup.py that we can use to reproduce the problem and
investigate?
Regards,
Fabio Martins
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to python2.7 in Ubuntu.
68 matches
Mail list logo
