Indrek Järve wrote:
Jim Gallacher wrote:
I've commited the change to fix the PY_STD_LIB path, but I'm wondering
about the include path. Will it still be
PY_INCLUDES="-I${PyEXEC_INSTALLDIR}/include/python${PyVERSION}"
or does that change on SuSE Linux 9.2 (x86-64) as well?
Include path stays
Jim Gallacher wrote:
Indrek Järve wrote:
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
Jim Gallacher wrote ..
Indrek Järve wrote:
Jim Gallacher wrote:
And see if any tests fail. If they pass, send a +1 to the list,
if they
fail, send the details (the versions of OS, Python and Apache,
the test
ou
Just FYI for anyone who's still interested...
The fileno method only exists and returns non-negative integers for real
file streams. So that's the trick.
Nick
Nick wrote:
Jim Gallacher wrote:
How about this? (Excuse the LateX)
\class{Field} instances have the following attributes:
...
Jim Gallacher wrote:
How about this? (Excuse the LateX)
\class{Field} instances have the following attributes:
...
\begin{memberdesc}{file}
This is a file-like object. For file uploads it points to a
\class{TemporaryFile} instance. (For more information see
TemporaryFile in the s
Nick wrote:
Jim Gallacher wrote:
Are you sure there is anything to correct? In both cases, the object
has the same methods available for manipulating files (t.write('a'),
for example). They are not the same type of object, so they have
different dir() output, but don't they have the same func
Indrek Järve wrote:
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
Jim Gallacher wrote ..
Indrek Järve wrote:
Jim Gallacher wrote:
And see if any tests fail. If they pass, send a +1 to the list, if
they
fail, send the details (the versions of OS, Python and Apache, the
test
output, and suggestions,
Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote:
I think the proper thing to do (i forgot about the cookie and x86-64
issues) is to consider 3.2.3b as shut down by pre-release testing, so
it's just going to be a version that will never be publicly released.
The next step is to apply the fixes you mentione
I think the proper thing to do (i forgot about the cookie and x86-64
issues) is to consider 3.2.3b as shut down by pre-release testing, so it's
just going to be a version that will never be publicly released.
The next step is to apply the fixes you mentioned below and roll a 3.2.4b,
then sub
Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote:
If we don't get an resolution on this Gentoo issue - should we just go
ahead and release the file anyway? Hopefully then someone will fix it
before the final release?
Since we have not received any additional information on this I think we
should proceed.
If we don't get an resolution on this Gentoo issue - should we just go
ahead and release the file anyway? Hopefully then someone will fix it
before the final release?
Grisha
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005, Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote:
Hmmm... Looking at /usr/lib/python2.4/httplib.py, sock.rea
Jim Gallacher wrote:
Are you sure there is anything to correct? In both cases, the object
has the same methods available for manipulating files (t.write('a'),
for example). They are not the same type of object, so they have
different dir() output, but don't they have the same functionality?
Wh
Jorey Bump wrote:
Jim Gallacher wrote:
Nick wrote:
More info:
python 2.4.2 on Linux:
>>> import tempfile
>>> t = tempfile.TemporaryFile()
>>> t
', mode 'w+b' at 0xb7df07b8>
>>> type(t)
>>> dir(t)
['__class__', '__delattr__', '__doc__', '__getattribute__',
'__hash__', '__init__', '__it
Indrek Järve wrote:
This behaviour has been with Python for quite a while, so claiming it's
simply a Python bug will be the same as declaring we don't support Windows.
Our company's software that runs on Windows and uses mod_python simply
patches util.py with the following change:
227c227
<
Jim Gallacher wrote:
You may have misunderstood. I was not suggesting that
tempfile.TemporaryFile was introduced in 3.1.4, only that it existed
there. Looking at the svn repository I see it's used in 3.0.0-beta and
2.7.9, so this bug has been lurking for a while. ;)
Yes, although the fact tha
Nick wrote:
Jim Gallacher wrote:
So this is an inconsistency within Python. Should mod_python attempt
to correct it, or just claim a Python bug?
I think we should correct it. I'm sure users don't care that we
implement this with TemporaryFile. That being said, I wonder how many
applicatio
Well, here's another alternative: provide some other attribute to Field,
such as is_file, to determine whether or not the Field is an actual file
upload or something else. Because as implemented, the file attribute will
always return a file-type object.
Nick
Nick wrote:
Jorey Bump wrote:
A
Jorey Bump wrote:
Are you sure there is anything to correct? In both cases, the object has
the same methods available for manipulating files (t.write('a'), for
example). They are not the same type of object, so they have different
dir() output, but don't they have the same functionality? What
Jim Gallacher wrote:
Nick wrote:
More info:
python 2.4.2 on Linux:
>>> import tempfile
>>> t = tempfile.TemporaryFile()
>>> t
', mode 'w+b' at 0xb7df07b8>
>>> type(t)
>>> dir(t)
['__class__', '__delattr__', '__doc__', '__getattribute__',
'__hash__', '__init__', '__iter__', '__new__', '_
Jim Gallacher wrote:
So this is an inconsistency within Python. Should mod_python attempt
to correct it, or just claim a Python bug?
I think we should correct it. I'm sure users don't care that we
implement this with TemporaryFile. That being said, I wonder how many
applications on Windows w
Nick wrote:
More info:
python 2.4.2 on Linux:
>>> import tempfile
>>> t = tempfile.TemporaryFile()
>>> t
', mode 'w+b' at 0xb7df07b8>
>>> type(t)
>>> dir(t)
['__class__', '__delattr__', '__doc__', '__getattribute__', '__hash__',
'__init__', '__iter__', '__new__', '__reduce__', '__reduce_e
Right, that's exactly what I'm having to do; I was thinking though that
mod_python should present a consistent interface, even if Python doesn't.
And, it is a bug in Python, even if it's a documentation bug (which claims
that the behavior of fdopen is to return a file object). I disagree that
Jim Gallacher wrote:
Dominic Wong wrote:
-1 for Gentoo Linux 2.6.13-gentoo-r3
Apache 2.0.54
Python 2.4.1
Hi Dominic,
When you have a chance could you apply the following patch and re-run
the tests?
Thanks,
Jim
Hi Jim,
I pretty much get the same output:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] /usr/loca
Dominic Wong wrote:
-1 for Gentoo Linux 2.6.13-gentoo-r3
Apache 2.0.54
Python 2.4.1
Hi Dominic,
When you have a chance could you apply the following patch and re-run
the tests?
Thanks,
Jim
Index: test/test.py
===
--- test/t
+1
MacOSX 10.4.2
gcc 4.0.0 (apple)
Python-2.4.2
Apache-2.0.55
cheers,
Ron
Ron Reisor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (RWR3)
University of Delaware Information Technologies/Network and Systems Services
Computing Center/192 South Chapel Street/Newark DE, 19716
pgp finger print: 0D 73 06 6F D3 6A 99 D3 F5
Indrek Järve wrote:
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
Jim Gallacher wrote ..
Indrek Järve wrote:
Jim Gallacher wrote:
And see if any tests fail. If they pass, send a +1 to the list, if
they
fail, send the details (the versions of OS, Python and Apache, the
test
output, and suggestions,
-1 for Gentoo Linux 2.6.13-gentoo-r3
Apache 2.0.54
Python 2.4.1
Haven't really got time to see what it is that's causing it right now:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] /usr/local/src/mod_python-3.2.3b/test $ python test.py
* Testing LoadModule
Creating config
listen port: 32771
Starting Apache
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
Jim Gallacher wrote ..
Indrek Järve wrote:
Jim Gallacher wrote:
And see if any tests fail. If they pass, send a +1 to the list, if they
fail, send the details (the versions of OS, Python and Apache, the test
output, and suggestions, if any).
Thank you,
Jim Gallacher wrote ..
> Indrek Järve wrote:
> > Jim Gallacher wrote:
> >
> >> And see if any tests fail. If they pass, send a +1 to the list, if they
> >> fail, send the details (the versions of OS, Python and Apache, the test
> >> output, and suggestions, if any).
> >>
> >> Thank you,
> >> Jim Ga
Indrek Järve wrote:
Jim Gallacher wrote:
And see if any tests fail. If they pass, send a +1 to the list, if they
fail, send the details (the versions of OS, Python and Apache, the test
output, and suggestions, if any).
Thank you,
Jim Gallacher
+1 on SuSE Linux 9.2 (i586)
+1 on SuSE Linux 9.
Jim Gallacher wrote:
And see if any tests fail. If they pass, send a +1 to the list, if they
fail, send the details (the versions of OS, Python and Apache, the test
output, and suggestions, if any).
Thank you,
Jim Gallacher
+1 on SuSE Linux 9.2 (i586)
+1 on SuSE Linux 9.2 (x86-64) once I edit
A new mod_python 3.2.3 beta tarball is now available for testing. A
Windows binary is also available.
This release is similar to 3.2.2b but fixes a couple a small issues
where a non-threaded python is used.
Here are the rules:
In order for a file to be officially announced, it has to be test
31 matches
Mail list logo
