On Jun 21, 2014, at 6:00 PM, Steve Dower <steve.do...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> We can always lie about the version in sys.version. Existing code is > unaffected and new code will have to use version_info (Windows developers > will know that Windows pulls tricks like this every other version... doesn't > make it a great idea, but it works). > > Changing compiler without changing at least the install directory and > preventing in place upgrades is a really bad idea, and with those mitigations > is only pretty bad. I'm torn here, because I know the current situation > hurts, but it'd probably only move to VC10 which will hurt just as much in a > few years... there are better tooling solutions (yes, I'm working on some > behind the scenes). > > A separate distro of _ssl and _hashlib wouldn't be too hard and has the same > effect as a dynamically linked OpenSSL. Maybe we can make these PyPI > updateable? Stuff from PyPI installs later on in the sys.path than the stdlib. I wish it were different but it means without sys.path shenanigans you can’t replace the stdlib with something from PyPI. > > Top-posted from my Windows Phone > From: M.-A. Lemburg > Sent: 6/21/2014 14:38 > To: Chris Angelico > Cc: Python-Dev > Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.7 patch levels turning two digit > > On 21.06.2014 22:34, Chris Angelico wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 2:57 AM, M.-A. Lemburg <m...@egenix.com> wrote: > >> On 21.06.2014 12:51, Nick Coghlan wrote: > >>> Such code has an easy fix available, though, as sys.version_info has > >>> existed since 2.0, and handles two digit micro releases just fine. The > >>> docs for sys.version also have this explicit disclaimer: "Do not > >>> extract version information out of it, rather, use version_info and > >>> the functions provided by the platform module." > >> > >> I don't think that's a good argument. Of course, there are > >> better ways to figure out the version number, but fact is, > >> existing code, even in the stdlib, does use and parse > >> the sys.version string version. > >> > >> During Python's lifetime, we've always avoided two digit > >> version numbers, so people have been relying on this, even > >> if it was never (AFAIK) documented anywhere. > > > > It's going to be a broken-code-breaking change that's introduced in a > > point release, but since PEP 404 implicitly says that there won't be a > > 2.10.0, there's no way around that. Although actually, a glance at the > > stdlib suggests that 2.10.0 (or 3.10.0) would break a lot more than > > 2.7.10 would break - there are places where sys.version[:3] is used > > (or equivalents like "... %.3s ..." % sys.version), or a whole-string > > comparison is done against a two-part version string (eg: sys.version > >> = "2.6"), and at least one place that checks sys.version[0] for the > > major version number, but I didn't find any that look at > > sys.version[:5] or equivalent. Everything that cares about the > > three-part version number seems to either look at > > sys.version.split()[0] or sys.version_info. Do you know where this > > problematic code is? > > > > I checked this in the 2.7.3 stdlib as packaged on my Debian Wheezy > > system, for what it's worth. > > There are no places in the stdlib that parse sys.version in a > way that would break wtih 2.7.10, AFAIK. I was just referring > to the statement that Nick quoted. sys.version *is* used for > parsing the Python version or using parts of it to build > e.g. filenames and that's really no surprise. > > That said, and I also included this in my answers to the questions > that Nick removed in his reply, I don't think that a lot of > code would be affected by this. I do believe that we can use > this potential breakage as a chance for improvement. See the last > question (listed here again)... > > 1. Is it a good strategy to ship to Python releases for every > single OpenSSL security release or is there a better way to > handle these 3rd party issues ? > > 2. Should we try to avoid two digit patch level release numbers > by using some other mechanism such as e.g. a release date > after 2.7.9 ? > > 3. Should we make use of the potential breakage with 2.7.10 > to introduce a new Windows compiler version for Python 2.7 ? > > My answers to these are: 1. We should use dynamic linking > instead and not let OpenSSL bugs trigger Python releases; 2. > It's not a big problem; 3. Yes, please, since it is difficult > for people to develop and debug their extensions with a > 2008 compiler, when the rest of the world has long moved on. > > -- > Marc-Andre Lemburg > eGenix.com > > Professional Python Services directly from the Source (#1, Jun 21 2014) > >>> Python Projects, Consulting and Support ... http://www.egenix.com/ > >>> mxODBC.Zope/Plone.Database.Adapter ... http://zope.egenix.com/ > >>> mxODBC, mxDateTime, mxTextTools ... http://python.egenix.com/ > ________________________________________________________________________ > 2014-06-17: Released eGenix PyRun 2.0.0 ... http://egenix.com/go58 > 2014-06-09: Released eGenix pyOpenSSL 0.13.3 ... http://egenix.com/go57 > 2014-07-02: Python Meeting Duesseldorf ... 11 days to go > > eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH Pastor-Loeh-Str.48 > D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg > Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611 > http://www.egenix.com/company/contact/ > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list > Python-Dev@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: > https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/steve.dower%40microsoft.com > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list > Python-Dev@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: > https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/donald%40stufft.io ----------------- Donald Stufft PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
