On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 10:15 AM, <exar...@twistedmatrix.com> wrote: > On 12:55 pm, jnol...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 4:53 AM, "Martin v. Löwis" <mar...@v.loewis.de> >> wrote: >>> >>> I'm confused: first you said they fail, now you say they get skipped. >>> Which one is it? I agree with R. David's analysis: if they fail, it's >>> a multiprocessing bug, if they get skipped, it's a flaw in the build >>> slave configuration (but perhaps only slightly so, because it is good >>> if both cases are tested - and we do have machines also that provide >>> /dev/shm). >> >> They failed until we had the tests skip those platforms - at the time, >> I felt that it was more of a bug with the build slave configuration >> than a multiprocessing issue, I don't like skipping tests unless the >> platform fundamentally isn't supported (e.g. broken semaphores for >> some actions on OS/X) - linux platforms support this functionality >> just fine - except when in locked-down chroot jails. >> >> The only reason I brought it up was to point out the a buildbot >> configuration on a given host can make tests fail even if those tests >> would normally pass on that operating system. > > Just as a build slave can be run in a chroot, so can any other Python > program. This is a real shortcoming of the multiprocessing module. It's > entirely possible that people will want to run Python software in chroots > sometimes. So it's proper to acknowledge that this is an unsupported > environment. The fact that the kernel in use is the same as the kernel in > use on another supported platform is sort of irrelevant. The kernel is just > one piece of the system, there are many other important pieces. > > Jean-Paul
I'm well aware of that. _______________________________________________ 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
