Re: Getting ready for 3.2 beta 2
I've tried to build 3.1.4 from the tarball on minotaur and of course it works. Could it be possible that the recent changes in the configure script cause the problem ? Regards, Nicolas 2005/9/10, Jim Gallacher [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I thought I'd it a shot on minotaur as well. Poking around a bit reveals that the default apache is indeed 1.3. It looks like there might be a viable apache2 hiding in /usr/local/apache2-install/www.apache.org/current. eg ./configure --with-apxs=/usr/local/apache2-install/www.apache.org/current/apxs Unfortunately, I'm getting the same errors as Grisha reported starting with: mod_python.c:34: error: syntax error before '*' token Regards, Jim Nicolas Lehuen wrote: I tried to build it under minotaur as well, but ./configure only finds a 1.3.33 version of Apache, so I can't go further. I can't help much here since I'm not used to FreeBSD... Regards, Nicolas 2005/9/9, Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Just tried compiling it on minotaur and I get the same error. minotaur is FreeBSD 5.4, so it looks like we have a -1. I don't know how much time I'll have this weekend, so I might or might not look into the cause of this - but anyone else with access to a FreeBSD box, you're more than welcome to dig in... :-) Grisha On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Jim Gallacher wrote: Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote: Don't know about versions, but I'd _really_ like to see a FreeBSD +1 at this point :-) Graham - don't you have FreeBSD access somewhere? If Graham can't help out maybe we could recruit a volunteer on the mod_python list? On the versioning discussion - I don't like 4.0, I think 3.3 should be the next version after 3.2.x. As far as even/odd stable/unstable - the Linux kernel folks have abandoned it because it didn't work for them. The fallacy is that you cannot know ahead of time what is stable and what is not. My preference is to just follow versions incrementally, and making it known which version is stable or not independently of the version number, which is what the HTTPD folks have been doing. I can't get worked up one way or another wrt to a version numbering scheme, as long as we release *something*. ;) Regards, Jim
Re: Getting ready for 3.2 beta 2
Jim Gallacher wrote .. Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote: I've been away this weekend - just got back, but I'm too busy to try to read all the multiple-interpreter related comments. I guess my question is - can someone provide a quick summary of how far we are from 3.2.1b test tarbal? I've also been away for the weekend. The patch for MODPYTHON-77 from last Thursday was causing apache to segfault and I have not had a chance to try the lastest changes from Boyan. As Graham stated on the weekend, the use of thread states can be very tricky. I think we should proceed with the 3.2.1b without the fix. That way we can take the time to make sure we understand the issues and fix it in 3.3. If we feel that 3.3 could be a while in coming, I'm tending to think that this change to support use of extensions using the simplified GIL interface should be incorporated into 3.2. This would depend though on how many more beta snapshots we think we might go through. Graham
Re: Getting ready for 3.2 beta 2
2005/9/8, Jorey Bump [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Jim Gallacher wrote: Nicolas Lehuen wrote: Well, why not keep our plan of releasing 3.2 ASAP and save this problem for a later 3.2.x as a bug fix ? Making subsequent bug-fix releases should be fast and easy. We cannot afford to repeat the long hiatus between 3.1.3 and 3.2, with a long period of time without any official bug fix. I agree that 3.3 may come later, but we definitely should be able to release 3.2 bugfixes version as often as possible. This will save us and our users a lot of time, allowing us to stop writing yeah, we know this bug, it's already fixed in SVN but you'll have to wait an undefinite time for the fix to go public. +1 It's always tempting to make one last change, fix one more bug, but then the release never happens. I think everyone has the will to move mod_python forward, we just need a little more discipline. There are lots of things we can do in 3.3, but I for one am not motivated to work on these until 3.2 is out. Lets get this puppy out the door and then have a discussion on plans and priorities for 3.3 with a view to reducing the time between bug fixes and major releases. Would it help to adopt a naming convention where odd minor versions are for development, and even minor versions are stable/bug-fix-only? This would be a convenient time to adopt it. In some environments, this gives developers a place to add new features (3.3.x) while the first stable release (3.2.0) is getting bug squashed. As a user, it makes things a lot clearer that a certain version is still in development when you lust after a new feature it offers. Just a thought... Yeah, why not. In any case, we should maintain a separate 3.2 branch with only bug fixes while developing the 3.3 version on the trunk (and merge the bugfixes from the 3.2 version into the 3.3 trunk, of course). We haven't done this for the 3.1 and 3.2 version, so everybody will need to upgrade to 3.2 even if they want a single bugfix. This is not a really bad thing this time, but next time, if we start to fool around and break some compatibility (think new import system here :), we should make sure we don't force our users to upgrade just to get one bugfix. Regards, Nicolas
Re: Getting ready for 3.2 beta 2
On 09/09/2005, at 10:02 AM, Jim Gallacher wrote: As far as some future version breaking compatibility, I favour a bigger jump in the major number: 3.2 - 4.0. This is server software after all, and some people may prefer to maintain an older version for a longer period, foregoing new features in favour of the tried and true. Incrementing the major number makes it more obvious that an upgrade may cause some problems. But I guess that discussion is sometime *way* in the future. :) I also have been thinking that a jump to version 4.0 would be better for what is being speculated on for the next release. Graham
Re: Getting ready for 3.2 beta 2
I've been away this weekend - just got back, but I'm too busy to try to read all the multiple-interpreter related comments. I guess my question is - can someone provide a quick summary of how far we are from 3.2.1b test tarbal? Thanks! Grisha On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Graham Dumpleton wrote: Nicolas Lehuen wrote .. Well I for one am happy woth MODPYTHON-73, I've integrated Graham's patch and made unit test to check if everything was OK. Graham should be happy too :). As troublesome as I am, even I am happy at this point. :-) Unfortunately, probably will not be able to do any last build checks on MacOSX. I think I'll get killed tonight if I start working on the computer tonight since I fly off quite early tomorrow morning. If I am lucky I'll get just enough time to sync from the svn repository and then I'll play with it on the plane. I'll then be off the Internet for about 4-5 days so if there are any problems you will not hear about them in time anyway. Graham
Re: Getting ready for 3.2 beta 2
Well, if I've understood Jim's mail, apart from the new MODPYTHON-77, we're all set. Regards, Nicolas2005/9/6, Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I've been away this weekend - just got back, but I'm too busy to try toread all the multiple-interpreter related comments. I guess my question is- can someone provide a quick summary of how far we are from 3.2.1b testtarbal?Thanks!GrishaOn Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Graham Dumpleton wrote: Nicolas Lehuen wrote .. Well I for one am happy woth MODPYTHON-73, I've integrated Graham's patch and made unit test to check if everything was OK. Graham should be happy too :). As troublesome as I am, even I am happy at this point. :-) Unfortunately, probably will not be able to do any last build checks on MacOSX. I think I'll get killed tonight if I start working on the computer tonight since I fly off quite early tomorrow morning. If I am lucky I'll get just enough time to sync from the svn repository and then I'll play with it on the plane. I'll then be off the Internet for about 4-5 days so if there are any problems you will not hear about them in time anyway. Graham
Re: Getting ready for 3.2 beta 2
Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote: I've been away this weekend - just got back, but I'm too busy to try to read all the multiple-interpreter related comments. I guess my question is - can someone provide a quick summary of how far we are from 3.2.1b test tarbal? I've also been away for the weekend. The patch for MODPYTHON-77 from last Thursday was causing apache to segfault and I have not had a chance to try the lastest changes from Boyan. As Graham stated on the weekend, the use of thread states can be very tricky. I think we should proceed with the 3.2.1b without the fix. That way we can take the time to make sure we understand the issues and fix it in 3.3. If that seems reasonable, I'll make the tarball today. Jim Thanks! Grisha On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Graham Dumpleton wrote: Nicolas Lehuen wrote .. Well I for one am happy woth MODPYTHON-73, I've integrated Graham's patch and made unit test to check if everything was OK. Graham should be happy too :). As troublesome as I am, even I am happy at this point. :-) Unfortunately, probably will not be able to do any last build checks on MacOSX. I think I'll get killed tonight if I start working on the computer tonight since I fly off quite early tomorrow morning. If I am lucky I'll get just enough time to sync from the svn repository and then I'll play with it on the plane. I'll then be off the Internet for about 4-5 days so if there are any problems you will not hear about them in time anyway. Graham
Re: Getting ready for 3.2 beta 2
On Tue, 6 Sep 2005, Jim Gallacher wrote: As Graham stated on the weekend, the use of thread states can be very tricky. I think we should proceed with the 3.2.1b without the fix. That way we can take the time to make sure we understand the issues and fix it in 3.3. If that seems reasonable, I'll make the tarball today. +1 Grisha
Re: Getting ready for 3.2 beta 2
Or speaking in diff (not tested):
--- setup.py.in.orig2005-09-01 11:42:09.082202944 -0400
+++ setup.py.in 2005-09-01 11:44:35.969872624 -0400
@@ -140,18 +140,24 @@
# this is a hack to prevent build_ext from trying to append
initmod_python to the export symbols
self.export_symbols = finallist(self.export_symbols)
-ModPyModule = ModPyExtension(getmp_srcdir(), [getmp_includedir(),
getapache_includedir()], [getapache_libdir()])
if winbuild:
+
+# build mod_python.so
+ModPyModule = ModPyExtension(getmp_srcdir(), [getmp_includedir(),
getapache_includedir()], [getapache_libdir()])
+
scripts = [win32_postinstall.py]
# put the mod_python.so file in the Python root ...
# win32_postinstall.py will pick it up from there...
# data_files = [(, [(os.path.join(getmp_srcdir(), 'Release',
'mod_python.so'))])]
data_files = []
+ext_modules = [ModPyModule, PSPModule]
+
else:
-# mpso = ../src/mod_python.so
+
scripts = []
data_files = []
+ext_modules = [PSPModule]
import string
from distutils import sysconfig
@@ -174,7 +180,7 @@
package_dir={'mod_python': os.path.join(getmp_rootdir(), 'lib',
'python', 'mod_python')},
scripts=scripts,
data_files=data_files,
- ext_modules=[ModPyModule, PSPModule])
+ ext_modules=ext_modules)
# makes emacs go into python mode
### Local Variables:
On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, Jim Gallacher wrote:
3. Eliminate creation of mod_python_so.so in non-windows environments.
Fix is ready to commit.
Not Done. I decided to defer this for reasons I won't go into just now.
It is not a show stopper anyway.
Isn't the fix basically just placing the ModPyModule and setup() with
ModPyModule inside the if winbuild block and then having another set()
without the ModPyModule in the else clause?
Unless there is some good reason for it, I think it is a show stopper because
it makes the build process look a bit on the bizzare side on Unix.
Grisha
Re: Getting ready for 3.2 beta 2
On 01/09/2005, at 6:19 AM, Jim Gallacher wrote:Hey Gang,I think we are ready for the 3.2.1b release. If there are no objections in the next 24 hours I'll create the package and make the announcement on python-dev.Sounds good.I'll always be hoping to sneak in just one more change (eg. MODPYTHON-73),but realities are that I have to stop at some point. :-)BTW, I will be traveling for a few weeks from this weekend and at timeswill be disconnected from the Internet and at other times will only havebasic dial-up access, so you might not hear from me too much duringthat period.Maybe I'll use the time to dream about writing a book. ;-)Graham
Re: Getting ready for 3.2 beta 2
Hi Jim, The fix for MODPYTHON-72 should be easy, unfortunately I'm quite busy right now, since my first daughter was born three days ago... I'll do my best to have a look at it, but if someone feels like doing it, I'll understand. Regards, Nicolas2005/8/26, Jim Gallacher [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I think we should aim for the second beta release in the next couple ofdays. I have a few questions and a list of outstanding issues.Name of tarball: mod_python-3.2.1b.tgz?Also, I assume a new branch called tags/release- 3.2.1-BETA will becreated in subversion, correct?Outstanding issues:1. flexFix is ready to commit pending some feedback on the warning messagegenerated by configure.2. MacOS compile Fixed in svn trunk.3. Eliminate creation of mod_python_so.so in non-windows environments.Fix is ready to commit.4. Fix segfault + memory leaks detailed in: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-75 http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-60 Boyan's patch detailed in MODPYTHON-75 seems to fix both of these. Fix is ready to commit.5. http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-72Fix still required.6. Publisher bug in 3.2 BETA, detailed by Graham in python-dev message posted 2005-08-21.Fix still required.I haven't looked at the code involved in items 5 and 6, but hopefullythe fixes will be fairly trivial.Regards,Jim
Re: Getting ready for 3.2 beta 2
Nicolas Lehuen wrote: Hi Jim, The fix for MODPYTHON-72 http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-72 should be easy, unfortunately I'm quite busy right now, since my first daughter was born three days ago... Congratulations Nicolas! I'll do my best to have a look at it, but if someone feels like doing it, I'll understand. I have nothing planned for this weekend, so don't worry if you don't have the time. I should be able to handle it. Best Regards, Jim
Re: Getting ready for 3.2 beta 2
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Jim Gallacher wrote: I think we should aim for the second beta release in the next couple of days. I have a few questions and a list of outstanding issues. Name of tarball: mod_python-3.2.1b.tgz? yep, 3.2.1b Also, I assume a new branch called tags/release-3.2.1-BETA will be created in subversion, correct? yup Regards, Jim Thanks Jim! Grisha
