[Python-Dev] Re: [Pydotorg] updated notes about building bsddb185 module

["Martin v. Löwis"]

Skip Montanaro wrote:

> My apologies, Martin.  I guess I misunderstood what you suggested.  (I
> suspect Nick Vargish may have as well.)  My interpretation of his complaint
> is that he doesn't have a functioning bsddb module and wants the old module
> back.  

That's the larger of his complaints. There is also a subcomplaint: 
Building the new bsddb185 module is not automatic, so he has to give 
explicit instructions to his admins.

> He wants to be able to install Python and have "bsddb" be the module.

He would want it that way. However, he could also accept importing 
bsddb185 as bsddb. He cannot accept having to edit Modules/Setup,
and he cannot accept building Sleepycat [34].x

> As currently constituted, I think Modules/bsddbmodule.c can only be built as
> "bsddb185" because of the symbols in the file.  How can Nick build that as
> "bsddb"?  

He can't. He can build it as bsddb185. However, his complaint is that 
setup.py doesn't do that for him.

> Furthermore, how can you guarantee that the bsddb package
> directory won't be found before the bsddb module during a module search
> (short, perhaps of statically linking the module into the interpreter)?

I don't think the module should be bsddb; I renamed the init function on 
purpose. All I'm suggesting that it is autmatically built with setup.py.

People can accept changing their Python code. They cannot accept having 
to ask more favours from their sysadmins.

Regards,
Martin