Tim Peters wrote at 2004-5-23 14:46 -0400: >> ... Not blocking signals that should not be blocks according to >> PThreads standard ...
>> Moreover, I doubt that such problems will be significant in practise: > >As above, the original signal-blocking patch was added for reasons "in >practice" that appeared sufficient at the time. If you want to argue that, >the right (helpful) place to do so is in a comment attached to the bug >report. You have snipped my explanation why I am convinced that the patch can only improve things! I have not argued that there was no case to block *some* signals, just not the ones that the operating system uses to signal major problems -- SIGSEGV, SIGBUS, ... and friends. The patch states that the pthreads standard says that such signals should not be blocked. This is a Python issue independent of the bug in LinuxThreads. > ... >An alternative to maintaining your own Python, and/or your own Linux, is to >move to the current Linux thread implementation (NPTL), which doesn't have >the LinuxThread signal bug that's the deeper cause of Zope's problems (on >Linux boxes using LinuxThreads). Our system administrators have been sceptical to switch to NPTL support. They say, there are still some problems about it. I will reraise the question and see what my colleagues feel as the less problematic way: use NPTL or our own Python version. -- Dieter _______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
