Paul> import zlib
Paul> ImportError: ld.so.1: python: fatal: relocation error: file
Paul> /usr/local/lib/python2.5/lib-dynload/zlib.so: symbol inflateCopy:
Paul> referenced symbol not found
Paul,
Try running
ldd /usr/local/lib/python2.5/lib-dynload/zlib.so
I'll wager
"Lauri Alanko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| All this just shows that treating plain octet sequences as "strings"
| simply won't work in the long run. You have to have separate type for
| _textual_ data (i.e. Unicode strings, in Python), and encode and decode
| bet
Lauri Alanko wrote:
> In the end, for now, I made protocol 0 textual,
That could be a mistake. I believe there are some objects,
such as array.array, that use a binary format for pickling
even in protocol 0.
--
Greg
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-De
> Would tests that use ctypes do do the open directly be acceptable ways
> of solving this?
If it solves it - sure.
Regards,
Martin
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http:/
On 5/1/07, Kristján Valur Jónsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hm, I fail to see the importance of a special regression test for that
> peculiar file then with its special magical OS properties. Why not focus
> our attention on real, user generated files?.
(Try to stick to the posting conventions
Kristján Valur Jónsson schrieb:
> Hm, I fail to see the importance of a special regression test for that
> peculiar file then with its special magical OS properties. Why not focus
> our attention on real, user generated files?.
Because real users really had real problems with this very real file,
Hm, I fail to see the importance of a special regression test for that
peculiar file then with its special magical OS properties. Why not focus
our attention on real, user generated files?.
-Original Message-
Wow, I'm very sorry, I didn't realize how much special pagefile.sys
and hiberfi
On 5/1/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That code only tests it for pagefile.sys. My question was about open
> handles in general. Both Calvin Spealman and I found that you cannot
> reproduce the problem when you, in Python 2.5.0, open a file, and then
> try to os.stat() it - even
Alexey Borzenkov schrieb:
> On 5/1/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > After doing some research I found that it seems to be impossible to
>> > use CreateFile for a file that doesn't have SHARE_READ.
>> So what about GetFileAttributesEx? What are the conditions under which
>> I ca
On 5/1/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > After doing some research I found that it seems to be impossible to
> > use CreateFile for a file that doesn't have SHARE_READ. I played with
> > different combinations and with FLAG_BACKUP_SEMANTICS and nothing
> > helped. However on Wind
> After doing some research I found that it seems to be impossible to
> use CreateFile for a file that doesn't have SHARE_READ. I played with
> different combinations and with FLAG_BACKUP_SEMANTICS and nothing
> helped. However on Windows there's still a possibility to read
> attributes: use FindFi
Hi Martin,
On 4/29/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The error Windows reports is ERROR_SHARING_VIOLATION. I never
> understood sharing fully, but it may be that if the file is opened
> in "exclusive sharing", stat'ing it may fail.
Sharing is actually very easy. If you didn't spe
On 4/29/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Calvin Spealman schrieb:
> > On 4/29/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Right. It shouldn't fail if the file is absent (it shouldn't
> >> pass in that case, either, but regrtest has no support for INCONCLUSIVE
> >> test o
Calvin Spealman schrieb:
> On 4/29/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Right. It shouldn't fail if the file is absent (it shouldn't
>> pass in that case, either, but regrtest has no support for INCONCLUSIVE
>> test outcomes).
>
> Perhaps that could become part of the improvements m
On 4/29/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Right. It shouldn't fail if the file is absent (it shouldn't
> pass in that case, either, but regrtest has no support for INCONCLUSIVE
> test outcomes).
Perhaps that could become part of the improvements made through
test.test_support.Test
>> > The
>> > original test failed, my new one does not.
>>
>> Then this change is incorrect: the test should fail in 2.5.0.
>
> I think I don't get why the test _must_ fail. If it fails, I assumed
> something was broken.
Correct. That is the whole point of this patch: It fixes a bug in
2.5.0, an
On 4/29/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The
> > original test failed, my new one does not.
>
> Then this change is incorrect: the test should fail in 2.5.0.
I think I don't get why the test _must_ fail. If it fails, I assumed
something was broken. If it failed because it was t
>> And you saw your test pass? Then it is not a valid test case for
>> the
>> bug being test, because the bug is present in 2.5.0, so your
>> test case should fail there.
>>
>
> I think I'm a little confused. Are you saying the original test
> should fail for me or that the test I changed it to s
On 4/29/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> As I said - I'm not convinced that is indeed correct. Before accepting
> >> a replacement test I would like confirmation that this test will fail
> >> on 2.5.0. You might not get ERROR_SHARING_VIOLATION in all cases of
> >> open files wi
>> As I said - I'm not convinced that is indeed correct. Before accepting
>> a replacement test I would like confirmation that this test will fail
>> on 2.5.0. You might not get ERROR_SHARING_VIOLATION in all cases of
>> open files with 2.5.0.
>
> But i am running 2.5.0 during my entire writing of
> Some record of this or documentation of just what conditions the tests
> are expecting to test against would probably be a good idea.
There is the sourceforge tracker item. If that is insufficient, feel
free to add more information.
Regards,
Martin
__
On 4/29/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Windows there is no guarantee that there will be a pagefile.sys on
> > the C drive, or even that there exists a C drive. The test checking for
> > the result of os.stat('C:\\pagefile.sys') is broken. Create a temporary
> > file, open
On 4/29/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm sorry, but somehow I could not parse this. My understanding was
> > that the unittest was meant to make sure an os.stat call would be
> > successful on an open file, and that pagefile.sys was simply used as a
> > known open file, whic
> On Windows there is no guarantee that there will be a pagefile.sys on
> the C drive, or even that there exists a C drive. The test checking for
> the result of os.stat('C:\\pagefile.sys') is broken. Create a temporary
> file, open it with Python, then stat it (like you later suggest).
> Either
Khalid A. Bakr schrieb:
> For reference, this is the result of running the
> regression tests of the official Python 2.5.1 (final)
> on Win98. I think I saw it in the installtion screen
> that Python 2.5 is the last release to support Win98.
>
> Even though the unicode tests failing might be
> ex
> After some googling it seems to me that this could
> likely be a User Rights Assignment issue of a systems
> file not an open file stat one, hence the Access
> denied error message (winerror 5) that I got in WinXP,
> as opposed to the File not found windows error
> (winerror 2) which one might ex
> I'm sorry, but somehow I could not parse this. My understanding was
> that the unittest was meant to make sure an os.stat call would be
> successful on an open file, and that pagefile.sys was simply used as a
> known open file, which is no longer correct.
No. The unit test was meant to test tha
"Khalid A. Bakr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There must be more to the problem than just an open
> > file. Please undo the change that triggered the
> > addition of the test, and see whether you
> > can reproduce the original problem with a
--- "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There must be more to the problem than just an open
> file. Please undo the change that triggered the
> addition of the test, and see whether you
> can reproduce the original problem with an arbitrary
> open file (I
> could trigger the problem wit
On 4/28/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I have a patch myself that creates an open file and uses that as the
> > test. My reasoning is that pagefile.sys was chosen as a file that
> > should always exist and be open, so its safe to test against, so we
> > should just be testing
> I have a patch myself that creates an open file and uses that as the
> test. My reasoning is that pagefile.sys was chosen as a file that
> should always exist and be open, so its safe to test against, so we
> should just be testing against a fixture, instead. It is here, and if
> someone would re
On 4/28/07, Jean-Paul Calderone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 09:32:57 -0400, Raghuram Devarakonda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >On 4/28/07, Calvin Spealman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Index: test_os.py
> >> =
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 09:32:57 -0400, Raghuram Devarakonda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On 4/28/07, Calvin Spealman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Index: test_os.py
>> ===
>> --- test_os.py (revision 54982)
>> +++ test_os.py (working co
On 4/28/07, Calvin Spealman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Index: test_os.py
> ===
> --- test_os.py (revision 54982)
> +++ test_os.py (working copy)
> @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
> import unittest
> import warnings
> import sys
> +import tempfi
On 4/27/07, Khalid A. Bakr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Okay. It seems I mixed up WindowsError with the
> exception e in my post; at least it is now known that
> e is not a number. The patch is short and is as
> follows:
>
> Index: Lib/test/test_os.py
> =
--- "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Or do I need to submit this through sourceforge?
>
> Please do. Why are you checking for error 2, though,
> if the error that occurs is 5?
>
> Regards,
> Martin
>
>
Done. I was just correcting the previous posted check
for error 2; I thou
> Or do I need to submit this through sourceforge?
Please do. Why are you checking for error 2, though,
if the error that occurs is 5?
Regards,
Martin
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Khalid A. Bakr schrieb:
> 1. The bz2 archive ships with
> \Modules\collectionsmodule.c instead of the
> \Modules\_collectionsmodule.c used in the 2.5 SVN
> branch. In fact the collectionsmodule.c was removed
> some time ago.
Why do you say that?
http://svn.python.org/projects/python/branches/rele
38 matches
Mail list logo
