-On [20080226 08:09], Neal Norwitz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I agree with the theory. However, we have only a single BSD box
currently working and it has been flaky. Primarily test_smtplib has
been failing sporadically on it. For example:
What are the requirements for a build box? I have both
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 12:07 AM, Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-On [20080226 08:09], Neal Norwitz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I agree with the theory. However, we have only a single BSD box
currently working and it has been flaky. Primarily test_smtplib has
been
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
I've looked at it, and I seriously doubt that. In WiX, you need to
specify a fixed file list (perhaps with wildcards; I'm unsure). This
will be tricky for Python, where the list of files to be installed
changes all the time.
You *need* to have a turing-complete
Bugbee, Larry wrote:
Hi Barry,
A question Do you know if OpenSSL's applink.c will be included in
the Windows builds? If so, and I hope it is, great!
If not, I'd like to encourage its inclusion. Doing so will permit
Python to be used with OpenSSL 0.9.8x on Windows platforms
2008/2/25, Thomas Hervé [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I've worked on that problem during the bug day. I've open a ticket with
a patch at http://bugs.python.org/issue2168.
Most of the buildbots are green now!!!
Thank you all! This community is as awesome as Python itself, ;)
Three remains in red,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 25, 2008, at 7:11 PM, Christian Heimes wrote:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
From the follow ups, it sounds like others can pitch in here. A
question though: is it reasonable to hold up the monthly release
because
a binary build we're going to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 26, 2008, at 12:04 AM, Neal Norwitz wrote:
It's been pretty bad the last month or so. Although it's getting
better now. I would recommend these are the golden bots based on what
have traditionally been fairly stable help expose errors:
[please cc me on responses]
I was wondering if getpass could be changed to enable piped stdin to work.
For instance, the getmail program can read my email password in via
stdin using getpass functionality.
However, if I do
echo password | getmail4
it will fail due to stdin not being a
Barry Warsaw wrote:
That would be find with me. Where are those Windows binaries available
for download from?
The Windows builds are hidden in the development section. It took me 10
minutes to find them because I was searching in the download section and
for nightly builds. The *daily* builds
I don't understand how applink is going to help you. The SSL libs are
statically linked into the _ssl extension DLL.
I personally have not used _ssl but on quick inspection I don't see any
of the crypto algorithms implemented, AES, ECDSA, etc. What if we want
to encrypt or sign content using
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 1:02 PM, Shaya Potter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[please cc me on responses]
I was wondering if getpass could be changed to enable piped stdin to work.
For instance, the getmail program can read my email password in via
stdin using getpass functionality.
However,
Leif Walsh wrote:
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 1:02 PM, Shaya Potter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[please cc me on responses]
I was wondering if getpass could be changed to enable piped stdin to work.
For instance, the getmail program can read my email password in via
stdin using getpass
I don't understand how applink is going to help you. The SSL libs are
statically linked into the _ssl extension DLL.
I personally have not used _ssl but on quick inspection I don't see any
of the crypto algorithms implemented, AES, ECDSA, etc. What if we want
to encrypt or sign content using
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 12:43 PM, Shaya Potter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the -p PASSWD option is not good on multi user systems
the -p PASSFILE option is not particularly good on NFS based systems
(have to trust every user on every machine with access to NFS share)
You seem somehow both
- Alpha Tru64: test_smtplib.py is flaky, and _ssl.c is not compiled
correctly. Neil is hunting this, I think.
Last time we looked at the _ssl problem, the machine had an
out-of-date installation of OpenSSL. Don't know if that ever got
rectified; I just crossed that buildbot off my list :-).
Leif Walsh wrote:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 12:43 PM, Shaya Potter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the -p PASSWD option is not good on multi user systems
the -p PASSFILE option is not particularly good on NFS based systems
(have to trust every user on every machine with access to NFS share)
You
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 1:18 PM, Shaya Potter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I want to run a program within a bash script, essentially daemonize a
program that doesn't have a daemon mode.
#!/bin/sh
echo What Is Your Passsword:
stty_orig=`stty -g`
stty -echo
read -r PASSWORD
stty
I personally have not used _ssl but on quick inspection I don't see any
of the crypto algorithms implemented, AES, ECDSA, etc. What if we want
to encrypt or sign content using OpenSSL?
I suggested adding a class which gives you access to those. I think
it's a good idea, and that serious use
Bill Janssen wrote:
[snip]
Do you have an opinion on the initial proposal of applink.c? The
proposal does neither seem harmful nor problematic but I also don't see
how it is going to help the op.
Christian
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Shaya Potter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Leif Walsh wrote:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 12:43 PM, Shaya Potter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the -p PASSWD option is not good on multi user systems
the -p PASSFILE option is not particularly good on NFS based systems
(have to trust every user on every
I appreciate the gesture but...
At this juncture I'd prefer to see OpenSSL access to crypto APIs remain
an external library like M2Crypto, at least until the Python community
is willing to do a full implementation of all OpenSSL APIs. ...and
maintain it.
Larry
-Original Message-
From:
My problem is still getting my head
around various MSI issues at any level (eg, bdist_msi needs some tweaking to
allow for different releases of the same package to be recognized as such,
but I'm not sure what MSI concept I'm dealing with yet...)
Don't hesitate to ask here. Not sure what
No, I still haven't found a solution. I do want to use the merge
module; anything else probably isn't going to work.
Da...ng
Didn't you prepare a new MSI installer for 3.0a2 that includes the VS
Redist MSM for X86? I vaguely remember that you've replaced my installer
with a new one.
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Shaya Potter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) I am willing to type in the password, which is obvious to anyone who
can read a simple script. That just doesn't work for a program you want
to run in the background to type it in every time.
I recommend you just hack
What do you think?
Feel free to try it out. I'm skeptical that it will be a better overall
solution than the current one - the main difference would be that,
rather than me being the only one who can realistically change the
packaging chain, it would be you who is the only one - which, in
Leif Walsh wrote:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Shaya Potter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) I am willing to type in the password, which is obvious to anyone who
can read a simple script. That just doesn't work for a program you want
to run in the background to type it in every time.
I
If not, I'd like to encourage its inclusion. Doing so will permit
Python to be used with OpenSSL 0.9.8x on Windows platforms without a
user trying to find somebody with the right compiler to rebuild a Python
for him/her. This is needed for M2Crypto, or any other OpenSSL wrapper
for that
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 15:32:03 -0500 Leif Walsh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Shaya Potter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) I am willing to type in the password, which is obvious to anyone who
can read a simple script. That just doesn't work for a program you want
to
Do you have an opinion on the initial proposal of applink.c? The
proposal does neither seem harmful nor problematic but I also don't see
how it is going to help the op.
The specific change isn't going to help. What could help is the
inclusion of applink.c into dl_nt.c.
This is not about
- X86 XP-4: idem. For this two, how can be tried if the bsddb lib in
those windows is correctly installed?
They check out bsddb from subversion, see Tools/buildbot/external.
If you don't trust that they did so correctly, edit the script to
remove bsddb, check that in, wait for them to delete
The Windows builds are hidden in the development section. It took me 10
minutes to find them because I was searching in the download section and
for nightly builds. The *daily* builds are available at
http://www.python.org/dev/daily-msi/
The builds occur 11:00 UTC (2.5), 12:00 UTC (2.6) and
2008/2/26, Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
They check out bsddb from subversion, see Tools/buildbot/external.
If you don't trust that they did so correctly, edit the script to
remove bsddb, check that in, wait for them to delete it, then revert
the script, check in again, and see how
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Facundo Batista
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/2/26, Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
They check out bsddb from subversion, see Tools/buildbot/external.
If you don't trust that they did so correctly, edit the script to
remove bsddb, check that in,
I won't pretend to know where the *best* place to put the include is, but
python.c was suggested to me some time ago. Just so you know, we tried putting
the include in some C code that is part of M2Crypto and it did not work
because, as we discovered, the applink table needs to be part of
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
The Windows builds are hidden in the development section. It took me 10
minutes to find them because I was searching in the download section and
for nightly builds. The *daily* builds are available at
http://www.python.org/dev/daily-msi/
The builds occur 11:00 UTC
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 02:04:47PM -0800, Brett Cannon wrote:
Or we can get rid of bsddb and not have the problem anymore. =)
+1 for smaller stdlib and fewer problems.
Oleg.
--
Oleg Broytmannhttp://phd.pp.ru/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Programmers don't die,
On 2/26/08, Brett Cannon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Facundo Batista
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/2/26, Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
They check out bsddb from subversion, see Tools/buildbot/external.
If you don't trust that they did so
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 9:46 PM, Gregory P. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/26/08, Brett Cannon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Facundo Batista
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/2/26, Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
They check out bsddb from
I think over a week ago I applied some GHOP work that turned
test_logging into a doctest, but it turns out it is still flaky.
Luckily Antoine Pitrou rewrote test_logging using unittest and seems
to have made it more sound.
But before I replace test_logging again (especially with a more
dramatic
39 matches
Mail list logo
