[Python-Dev] "Buildbot" category on the tracker

Jesse Noller jnoller at gmail.com
Fri Oct 30 15:44:59 CET 2009

On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 10:15 AM,  <exarkun at twistedmatrix.com> wrote:
> On 12:55 pm, jnoller at gmail.com wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 4:53 AM, "Martin v. Löwis" <martin at v.loewis.de>
>> wrote:
>>> I'm confused: first you said they fail, now you say they get skipped.
>>> Which one is it? I agree with R. David's analysis: if they fail, it's
>>> a multiprocessing bug, if they get skipped, it's a flaw in the build
>>> slave configuration (but perhaps only slightly so, because it is good
>>> if both cases are tested - and we do have machines also that provide
>>> /dev/shm).
>> They failed until we had the tests skip those platforms - at the time,
>> I felt that it was more of a bug with the build slave configuration
>> than a multiprocessing issue, I don't like skipping tests unless the
>> platform fundamentally isn't supported (e.g. broken semaphores for
>> some actions on OS/X) - linux platforms support this functionality
>> just fine - except when in locked-down chroot jails.
>> The only reason I brought it up was to point out the a buildbot
>> configuration on a given host can make tests fail even if those tests
>> would normally pass on that operating system.
> Just as a build slave can be run in a chroot, so can any other Python
> program.  This is a real shortcoming of the multiprocessing module. It's
> entirely possible that people will want to run Python software in chroots
> sometimes.  So it's proper to acknowledge that this is an unsupported
> environment.  The fact that the kernel in use is the same as the kernel in
> use on another supported platform is sort of irrelevant. The kernel is just
> one piece of the system, there are many other important pieces.
> Jean-Paul

I'm well aware of that.

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list