I think it crosses the line. On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 2:55 AM, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I need a release manager call on whether or not the proposed resolution > of this issue goes beyond what is acceptable for a bug fix in 2.6.1. > > Short version: > - Python 2.5 allowed packages to be executed with -m, but in a broken way > - I disabled the broken way for 2.6, but didn't provide a replacement > - The patch attached to 4195 once again allows execution of packages > with -m, but in a clean way similar to the way directories and zipfiles > can now be executed > - I would like to commit that patch for 3.0/2.6.1, but I'm concerned > that it crosses the "no new features" line > > Long version: > > There was a bug in python 2.5 that allowed a package name to be passed > to the -m switch or runpy.run_module() and it would mostly work. > > However, the 'mostly' was due to the fact that doing this put the > internal import machinery into a slightly inconsistent state: the > interpreter was running code from inside a package, but that package > wasn't actually present in sys.modules. This could lead to assorted hard > to trace import-related weirdness, similar to what you can get when > executing a file from inside a package by name. You would often get away > with it, but good luck figuring out what is happening if things go wrong > (and you aren't already an expert on Python import mechanics). > > Since the ability to execute packages wasn't intentional, I added the > missing check to block it explicitly in 2.6 (but left it alone for 2.5). > It seemed like a really niche feature, so I didn't figure out a clean > replacement for it at the time. > > Benjamin noticed this change earlier in the 2.6 release cycle, I pointed > out it was a deliberate change, and that's the way it stayed until after > 2.6 was released. > > After the release, Andi Vajda (from the JCC project [1]) contacted me, > and together we worked out a better implementation of package support > for the -m switch (and runpy.run_module) [2] by extending the > __main__.py approach used to support direct execution of zipfiles and > directories [3]. > > That's what I would like to add, since it nicely complements the ability > to execute zipfiles and directories, while also restoring the ability to > pass a package name to the -m switch (but in a way that keeps the import > machinery in a consistent state). > > Cheers, > Nick. > > [1] http://pypi.python.org/pypi/JCC > > [2] http://bugs.python.org/issue4195 (package execution with -m) > [3] http://bugs.python.org/issue1739468 (zipfile execution) > > -- > Nick Coghlan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Brisbane, Australia > --------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list > Python-Dev@python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: > http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/guido%40python.org >
-- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
