Issue 1250389: The -m option to python does not search zip files (original) (raw)

Issue1250389

Created on 2005-08-02 16:55 by paul.moore, last changed 2022-04-11 14:56 by admin. This issue is now closed.

Messages (5)
msg25957 - (view)	Author: Paul Moore (paul.moore) *	Date: 2005-08-02 16:55
The -m option, to run a module from sys.path as a main program, does not work when the module is in a zip file. Here is an example demonstrating: D:\Data>type zipmtest.py def a(): print "Hello, world" if __name__ == '__main__': a() D:\Data>python -m zipmtest Hello, world D:\Data>zip -9 zipm zipmtest.* adding: zipmtest.py (92 bytes security) (deflated 8%) D:\Data>set PYTHONPATH=zipm.zip D:\Data>del zipmtest.py Deleting D:\Data\zipmtest.py 1 file deleted D:\Data>python -m zipmtest python: module zipmtest not found D:\Data>python -c "import zipmtest" (note the last import - python can find the zipmtest module quite happily, but -m misses it). This is a fairly severe limitation on -m, particularly as use of "egg" distributions (which are basically zipfiles) becomes more common.
msg25958 - (view)	Author: Paul Moore (paul.moore) *	Date: 2005-08-11 18:33
Logged In: YES user_id=113328 I have looked into this, and it appears that _PyImportHooks_Init is getting called properly, and the zipimport mechanism is getting initialised (python -v -m a where a.py is in a zip file on sys.path shows this). The problem seems to be that main.c calls, in Py_Main, _PyImport_FindModule, with the "loader" argument set to NULL, which disables handling of PEP 302 style import hooks. This makes sense, to the extent that the current code needs a real FILE* to call PyRun_AnyFileExFlags, it should be possible (by calling PyRun_SimpleStringFlags instead, maybe?) to execute a module loaded from a hook. Unfortunately, I can't take this any further at present, as I don't have the means to build Python in order to test a patch.
msg25959 - (view)	Author: Alyssa Coghlan (ncoghlan) *	Date: 2005-11-10 09:05
Logged In: YES user_id=1038590 I agree this is a significant limitation on -m, although I think it actually pales in comparison to the fact you can't use modules inside packages. So please take a look at PEP 328 and provide feedback on it. I've had absolutely *zero* feedback on it since I wrote it, and have had to assume that no-one else was bothered by the current limitations.
msg25960 - (view)	Author: Paul Moore (paul.moore) *	Date: 2005-11-10 10:26
Logged In: YES user_id=113328 I assume you meant PEP 338. I'm completely in favour of that. I didn't give feedback simply because I had nothing constructive to add beyond "+1"... (And I agree that PEP 338 is more important than this bug - but I'd like to see both sorted :-))
msg25961 - (view)	Author: Paul Moore (paul.moore) *	Date: 2006-04-27 16:43
Logged In: YES user_id=113328 I can confirm that this has been fixed in 2.5a2