Since I didn't get any serious review on my pull request since February, I created this thread on python-dev to get more people looking into this issue.
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 5:30 PM Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 at 15:32, Victor Stinner <vstin...@python.org> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 11:46 AM Victor Stinner <vstin...@python.org> wrote: > > > I propose adding a -P option to Python command line interface to "not > > > add sys.path[0]": > > > https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/31542 > > > > My plan is to merge this change at 2022-05-05, the day before the > > Python 3.11 feature freeze, > > Why leave it until the last minute? That just makes it harder to > revert if someone immediately finds a problem with it. I wrote my PR in February. If it goes wrong, we will have until October to revert it. The idea is to merge it before beta1 to have 6 months to play with it and check for corner cases. > It seems very rushed to propose this and implement it days before 3.11 > freeze. If it's been an issue for 11 years, then (a) why didn't anyone > propose this solution months ago, and (b) surely it can wait another > year? Different solutions were proposed over the last 11 years. See for example: https://bugs.python.org/issue13475 Sadly, no solution was merged into Python, only discussed. > Steve Dower mentioned some (IMO) > reasonable points, and you pretty much dismissed them without any > discussion. That doesn't seem like the right way to handle this. In > particular, I think the question of how this flag interacts with all > the other flags and settings that affect sys.path and how "isolated" > Python is, is an important thing to consider[^1]. See the init_config.rst documentation of my PR: isolated=1 implies add_path=0 (no behavior change) https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/31542/files Running Python with a ._pth file implies isolated=1 and so add_path=0 (no behavior change). It seems like Steve's proposal is orthogonal, but I don't think that it's exclusive. We can add a second option, no? > [^1]: We've had multiple attempts to get locale and UTF8 handling > right, and now have a mess of flags, environment variables, and > options that frankly only the experts can understand. I fear that we > could end up with the same issue for "Python initialisation flags" if > we don't take a less rushed approach. The locale encoding, the Python filesystem encoding and the Python UTF-8 Mode are way more complicated problems. I spent years to fix issues about these, so I'm well aware of these issue. By the way, I also designed PEP 587 PyConfig API and I implemented it. Here the -P option effect is restricted to a single function: pymain_run_python(). My pull request can be summarized as: - else if (!config->isolated) { + else if (config->add_path0) { Do you think that we should pay attention to something in specific? Right now, I propose to not add an environment variable and -P is unrelated to -E (ignore env vars). Victor -- Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/BFZIGOIVCBNSHBQS7JHKXWWYTENGUWJO/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
