To wipe out the build occassionally you could (presumably) add a
starting step to the Python 'builder' (in the build master.cfg) to
rm -rf $builddir
every, say, Sunday night.
That would work, although to be honest the buildbot is more about repeatable
builds. My first suggestion
Ah, but that would require changes to the slaves, right? I would
prefer a solution that avoids that.
I don't think so. In my little test setup I didn't have to make any
change to the slave.
The update and clobber mode parameters are implemented on the slave side.
Trent's patch changes
The reason I want static pages is for security concerns. It is not
easy whether buildbot can be trusted to have no security flaws,
which might allow people to start new processes on the master,
or (perhaps worse) on any of the slaves.
These are excellent points. While it would take a complete
Georg Brandl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, this still has the faint whiff of impossibility about it. Are
you sure it's setupterm() that's doing the damage? Can you reproduce
interactively?
Yep.
Alone, the setupterm call [curses.setupterm(sys.__stdout__.fileno())] does
nothing
On Wed, 2006-01-11 at 07:59 +0100, Thomas Heller wrote:
Another possibility would be to emit a warning when the module (dl or
ctypes, if included) is imported.
warnings.warn(Incorrect usage of this module may crash Python,
RuntimeWarning, stacklevel=2)
BTW, although I'm
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 07:59:50AM -0500, Barry Warsaw wrote:
BTW, although I'm pretty sure the answer is no (at least, I hope it
is), is anyone aware of a situation where the mere importation of a
module can cause Python to crash?
Well, I assume you aren't importing any 'hostile' code, nor
On Wed, 2006-01-11 at 14:54 +0100, Thomas Wouters wrote:
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 07:59:50AM -0500, Barry Warsaw wrote:
BTW, although I'm pretty sure the answer is no (at least, I hope it
is), is anyone aware of a situation where the mere importation of a
module can cause Python to crash?
Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 1/10/06, Thomas Wouters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, I missed the point I was aiming at, I guess. I wasn't aiming for
fixable bugs; I see these things as, with great effort, holding up your foot
at an awkward angle so that it ends up right at
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 02:54:40PM +0100, Thomas Wouters wrote:
The pickle vulnerability came up last year, when someone on #python was
subclassing a builtin type (string or dict, I think the latter) that was
using a magical invocation of (IIRC) __new__ on unpickle. The subclassed
__new__
sys.setrecursionlimit(130)
f = lambda f:f(f)
f(f)
Segmentation fault
Is there some way that Python can determine that 130 is an unreasonable
recursion limit?
Skip
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
On 1/11/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sys.setrecursionlimit(130)
f = lambda f:f(f)
f(f)
Segmentation fault
Is there some way that Python can determine that 130 is an unreasonable
recursion limit?
Yes, but that doesn't help -- there's some value in the
On 11-jan-2006, at 7:59, Thomas Heller wrote:
I'm of the opinion that having a big red
warning at the top of the module documentation that this is a
contributed module, and incorrect use could cause segmentation
faults/crashes, etc would be sufficient.
Works for me.
Another possibility
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 07:59:03AM +0100, Thomas Heller wrote:
Another possibility would be to emit a warning when the module (dl or
ctypes, if included) is imported.
warnings.warn(Incorrect usage of this module may crash Python,
RuntimeWarning, stacklevel=2)
Arrgggh! No!!
Fredrik == Fredrik Lundh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Fredrik many test frameworks support expected failures for this
Fredrik purpose. how hard would it be to add a
Fredrik unittest.FailingTestCase
Fredrik class that runs a TestCase, catches any errors in it, and
Fredrik
The reason I want static pages is for security concerns. It is not
easy whether buildbot can be trusted to have no security flaws,
which might allow people to start new processes on the master,
or (perhaps worse) on any of the slaves.
I have security concerns as well, but not in buildbot
[Stephen J. Turnbull wrote]
Fredrik == Fredrik Lundh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Fredrik many test frameworks support expected failures for this
Fredrik purpose. how hard would it be to add a
Fredrik unittest.FailingTestCase
Fredrik class that runs a TestCase,
[Neal Norwitz wrote]
[Fredrik Lundh wrote]
Can buildbot deal with custom test/validation scripts, and collect the
output
somewhere ?
...
It looks like we could define a class similar to Test, such as:
class Catalog(ShellCommand):
name = catalog
warnOnFailure = 0 # this
Brian Warner wrote:
That would work, although to be honest the buildbot is more about repeatable
builds. My first suggestion would be to have two separate Builders, one of
which does incremental builds, the other which does full (from-scratch)
builds.
My concern is that then the number of
[Martin v. Loewis wrote]
Brian Warner wrote:
That would work, although to be honest the buildbot is more about repeatable
builds. My first suggestion would be to have two separate Builders, one of
which does incremental builds, the other which does full (from-scratch)
builds.
My
On 1/11/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One concern might be performance. All buildbot slaves are contributed
hardware. I don't mind the load on my Mac (it's a dual processor g5), but
it may be an issue for other people.
I've contributed 2 machines. One is my personal box,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote]
Trent Specifically are you concerned about the readability of the
Trent waterfall page or other things (maintainability or something)? If
Trent the former, perhaps we could get some mileage out of the query
Trent args that Brian mentioned:
One
Neal Norwitz wrote:
Does that make sense? We would just need /f's script in SVN.
in python/Tools/something or sandbox/something ?
/F
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One concern might be performance. All buildbot slaves are contributed
hardware. I don't mind the load on my Mac (it's a dual processor g5), but
it may be an issue for other people. Does/can buildbot run at a lower
priority or is it just a matter of nice-ing the
Trent Mick wrote:
Specifically are you concerned about the readability of the waterfall
page or other things (maintainability or something)? If the former,
perhaps we could get some mileage out of the query args that Brian
mentioned:
Indeed - that would be a solution. However, I wonder how
Tim Peters wrote:
This reminded me that I still owe you a reply about s# and t# format
codes. It occurred to me that I've never used them, and probably
never will, so I really don't care how they work: I'm only really
worried about widespread ugliness, meaning wide enough that it touches
me
nice-ing the slave process at startup would be the way to do it, right?
Yup. We run the twisted buildslaves under 'nice', and it works pretty well.
It also reveals problems in tests that use absolute timeouts which fail when
the test runs slower than the author thought it was supposed to.
Does that make sense? We would just need /f's script in SVN.
in python/Tools/something or sandbox/something ?
python/Doc/tools/something?
Trent
--
Trent Mick
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
So as for dealing with it somehow: I would make ctypes a dynamically
loaded module (ctypes.pyd), so administrators could remove it, and
I could also make it a separate option in the Windows installer,
so administrators could reject to install it.
I like this solution.
2006/1/11, Tony Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Remember that there has been a lot of discussion about how
ConfigParser should work in the past; for example (ignoring c.l.p):
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-October/049454.html
Is there any objection to this patch? Any support?
On 1/10/06, Crutcher Dunnavant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1402289
On 1/10/06, Aahz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006, Crutcher Dunnavant wrote:
There is an inconsistancy in the way that dictionary subclasses behave
when
PS If there was a method on ShellCommand, adding a step would be simpler,
e.g.,
def addStep(self, cls, **kwds):
self.steps.append((cls, kwds))
Ooh! I like that.
then we could do: f.addStep(Catalog, command=Catalog.command)
It would be even simpler: f.addStep(Catalog). The command=
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 09:18:59 -0800, Stephen Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The reason I want static pages is for security concerns. It is not
easy whether buildbot can be trusted to have no security flaws,
which might allow people to start new processes on the master,
or (perhaps worse) on any
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
My initial thought was that we could ask alpha testers to run this script on
their alpha builds, and report back, but it just struck me that the buildbot
already builds stuff on a couple of interesting platforms.
Can buildbot deal with custom test/validation scripts, and
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 07:19:08AM +0100, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
My initial thought was that we could ask alpha testers to run this script on
their alpha builds, and report back, but it just struck me that the
buildbot
already builds stuff on a couple of interesting
Andrew Bennetts wrote:
A limited solution is just to make the script put the files where they will be
published by something other than buildbot. e.g. Twisted's docs are built
from
SVN by one of our buildslaves, and placed in a directory published at
35 matches
Mail list logo
