| msg94329 - (view) |
Author: Zooko O'Whielacronx (zooko) |
Date: 2009-10-21 23:22 |
| According to https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/boost1.38/+bug/457688 , Python 2.6.3 stopped working for something that Python 2.6.2 worked for, involving Boost. Andrew Mitchell looked at the Python 2.6.3 release notes, saw http://bugs.python.org/issue5890 which was fixed by http://svn.python.org/view/python/branches/release26- maint/Objects/descrobject.c?r1=71756&r2=72302&pathrev=72302 . Could this patch be causing this problem? |
|
|
| msg94330 - (view) |
Author: Barry A. Warsaw (barry) *  |
Date: 2009-10-21 23:34 |
| I think this is caused by the fix for bug 5890 and isn't a regression. |
|
|
| msg94333 - (view) |
Author: Barry A. Warsaw (barry) * |
Date: 2009-10-22 02:02 |
| Apparently this affects more than just Boost. lifeless (Robert Collins) tells me that "__doc__ becoming readonly buggered some code of ours in bzr too, IIRC". He thinks it was in pure Python (i.e. not extension code). Does anybody have a pure Python reproducible example? |
|
|
| msg94342 - (view) |
Author: Barry A. Warsaw (barry) * |
Date: 2009-10-22 14:40 |
| Robert indicated later that this probably did /not/ affect Bazaar. |
|
|
| msg94343 - (view) |
Author: R. David Murray (r.david.murray) * |
Date: 2009-10-22 14:41 |
| I added some tests in test_property in my checkout and the __doc__ property is not, as far as I can tell, set read-only by the issue 5890 fix. The error message referenced in the report is: AttributeError: 'Boost.Python.StaticProperty' object attribute '__doc__' is read-only If Boost.Python.StaticProperty is a subclass of Property, which seems likely, then the 5890 fix could well be triggering this error, since if a property created with a subclass is given a docstring, the fix creates a __doc__ attribute in the subclass's dict. If the subclass dict is read only, the above error would be triggered. I don't know enough about extension types to know if the property code should be special casing extension types, but if it should, then IMO that would qualify 5890 as a regression. Otherwise I don't think it is, though we could still consider whether making a change to reduce user pain is worthwhile. (To be worthwhile it would have to be likely to reach the users before the Boost fix does...apparently Boos has a fix in their SVN for this problem.) I'm guessing that this is a problem only with extension types, not with pure Python code. |
|
|
| msg94344 - (view) |
Author: R. David Murray (r.david.murray) * |
Date: 2009-10-22 14:43 |
| That should have been 'instance's dict', not the subclass dict. |
|
|
| msg94348 - (view) |
Author: Barry A. Warsaw (barry) * |
Date: 2009-10-22 15:01 |
| Thanks David, that's what I suspect too (that's its a problem with extension types). Unless we get more information, I'm not inclined to hold up the 2.6.4 release for this. |
|
|
| msg94356 - (view) |
Author: Antoine Pitrou (pitrou) * |
Date: 2009-10-22 15:50 |
| I'm not sure I understand, how do you create a "read-only instance dict"? |
|
|
| msg94360 - (view) |
Author: R. David Murray (r.david.murray) * |
Date: 2009-10-22 15:55 |
| I'm not sure you do. I have no idea how Boost works, but the fact that removing a Boost 'read-only' declaration circumvents the problem in at least some cases argues that Boost is setting _something_ read-only. |
|
|
| msg94367 - (view) |
Author: Barry A. Warsaw (barry) * |
Date: 2009-10-22 18:36 |
| After discussion on python-dev, this will not block 2.6.4 |
|
|
| msg95156 - (view) |
Author: Moriyoshi Koizumi (moriyoshi) |
Date: 2009-11-12 05:03 |
| See my comment on issue #5890. I attached a patch to solve the Boost.Python issue. |
|
|
| msg123956 - (view) |
Author: R. David Murray (r.david.murray) * |
Date: 2010-12-14 15:43 |
| Since boost has changed their code and no one else has reported a problem and 2.6 is now in bug fix only mode, I'm going to close this as out of date (sorry I overlooked it for 2.6.5). If anyone disagrees, let me know what we should change and why in 2.7. |
|
|