| 1 |
On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 08:36:12AM +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 30-09-2012 14:47:17 -0700, Brian Harring wrote: |
| 3 |
> > > In the worst case it returns "Bad marshalling data". |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > Examples wanted for this. If this occurs, that's a python bug- one |
| 6 |
> > exception... portage (figures). They install into a non |
| 7 |
> > /usr/lib/python* location, meaning the .pyc/.pyo from py2.6 is |
| 8 |
> > exposed/accessed for py2.7 for example. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=300922 |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> I doubt whether it's a Python bug, we have to mess with the files. But |
| 13 |
> then again, I did some toying, and it seems Python doesn't care about |
| 14 |
> this (any more?). |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Well, offhand that bug is pre EAPI3 (eapi3 was approved 01/18/10, and |
| 17 |
adoption was slow- lot of people skipped straight to eapi4) - so the |
| 18 |
mtime wouldn't have been guaranteed preserved for a long while. |
| 19 |
Meaning the bugs data I don't trust to be relevant due to timing, and |
| 20 |
age. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
As you said, this needs revisiting- minimally, portage is screwing |
| 23 |
around contents there, and I don't trust the python eclass to /not/ be |
| 24 |
forcing a compileall after the fact anyways. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Suggest backing down the various protections for a full test, and |
| 27 |
resuming that bug- if you can replicate it, I'm definitely interested |
| 28 |
(dealt with this when it occurred for 2.3->2.4 for example). |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
~harring |
Archives