[Stackless] python 2.8 slp (Re: Fwd: [Stackless-checkins] stackless (2.7-slp): add a filter function to zipfile.PyZipFile.)

Christian Tismer tismer at stackless.com
Wed Nov 13 18:12:41 CET 2013

This problem is going to vanish, as there is a patch under review that
fixes this, soon.

The problem itself remains: this is an old bug that is waiting for the
vermin exterminators 

cheers - chris :-)

On 12/11/13 12:16, Christian Tismer wrote:
> Not really true:
> I am fighting since weeks to get a patch into PySide that makes stackless
> run with PySide (and non-stackless as well).
> It is actually that old issue from 2007:
> Stackless should not touch its extra fields in PyHeapType when the 
> extension
> flag is not set.
> As long as that is not solved, we must admit that binary compatibility
> is not there.
> Not sure what is faster: Pondering more on the PySide devs to allow my 
> patch,
> or fixing Stackless once and for all time.
> sigh -- Chris
> On 12.11.13 10:04, Kristján Valur Jónsson wrote:
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: stackless-bounces at stackless.com [mailto:stackless-
>>> bounces at stackless.com] On Behalf Of Richard Tew
>>> Sent: 11. nóvember 2013 19:30
>>> To: The Stackless Python Mailing List
>>> Subject: Re: [Stackless] python 2.8 slp (Re: Fwd: [Stackless-checkins]
>>> stackless (2.7-slp): add a filter function to zipfile.PyZipFile.)
>>> This has been talked about on and off the list for years.  I think 
>>> at this point
>>> it's a matter of just doing it.  Let's get this dog and pony show on 
>>> the road :-)
>> Yay!
>>> Would we bother to provide builds which are not "Stackless"?  I 
>>> really don't
>>> see the point, code which does not use Stackless features should run 
>>> the
>>> same regardless of whether we compile it in or out.
>> I think the compile time option is there more as a sanity check than 
>> anything.
>> I don't see the point of leaving stackless out,.
>>> We've discussed in the past whether we should bundle stacklesslib 
>>> with our
>>> Python builds.  What was the reason we don't do this?
>> Different release schedule, perhaps?
>> At CCP I've put a "stacklesslib" inside the Lib folder.  We could add 
>> that to stackless.
>> But we would have to think about release schedules, and cadence (a 
>> popular word these days.)
>> Would we want to make stacklesslib more official?  We would have to 
>> give it some more love,
>> unittests, and its own installer.  Or not.  Installer or not? part of 
>> lib or part of the cheeseshop?
>> K
>> _______________________________________________
>> Stackless mailing list
>> Stackless at stackless.com
>> http://www.stackless.com/mailman/listinfo/stackless

Christian Tismer             :^)   <mailto:tismer at stackless.com>
Software Consulting          :     Have a break! Take a ride on Python's
Karl-Liebknecht-Str. 121     :    *Starship* http://starship.python.net/
14482 Potsdam                :     PGP key -> http://pgp.uni-mainz.de
phone +49 173 24 18 776  fax +49 (30) 700143-0023
PGP 0x57F3BF04       9064 F4E1 D754 C2FF 1619  305B C09C 5A3B 57F3 BF04
       whom do you want to sponsor today?   http://www.stackless.com/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.stackless.com/pipermail/stackless/attachments/20131113/8e96aa72/attachment.html>

More information about the Stackless mailing list