Re: [Python-Dev] Windows XP, Python 3.5 and PEP 11

2014-06-17 Thread Victor Stinner
2014-06-17 7:01 GMT+02:00 Tim Golden :
> On 17/06/2014 04:08, Zachary Ware wrote:
>> This was recently discussed in the "Moving Python 3.5 on Windows to a
>> new compiler" thread, where Martin declared XP support to be ended
>> [1].  I believe Tim Golden is the only resident Windows dev from whom
>> I haven't seen at least implicit agreement that XP doesn't need
>> further support, so I'd say our support for XP is well and truly dead
>> :)
>>
>> In any case, surely anyone stuck with XP can be happy with Python 3.4.
>> I'm perfectly fine with 3.2 on Win2k!
>>
>
> I think we're justified in dropping XP support, for all the reasons others
> have given.

Would you be ok to make this official by adding Windows XP explicitly
to the PEP 11? (I can do the change, I'm just asking for a
confirmation.)

> Like most people, I suppose, I'm support WinXP in various ways
> (including embedded) because "not supported" != "not working". But those are
> all running 2.x versions of Python.

I'm ok to provide a best-effort support of Windows XP on Python 2.7
(and maybe also Python 3.4), especially if there are Windows XP
buildbots. We can drop Windows XP support in Python 3.5 only.

Victor
___
Python-Dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com


[Python-Dev] Commit "avoid a deadlock with the interpreter head lock and the GIL during finalization"

2014-06-17 Thread Victor Stinner
Hi,

I just saw a change in Python finalization related to threads. I'm not
sure that it is correct to not call tstate_delete_common(). Is this
change related to an issue? I don't see any specific test.

---
changeset 91234:5ccb6901cf95 3.4

avoid a deadlock with the interpreter head lock and the GIL during finalization

author Benjamin Peterson 
date Mon, 16 Jun 2014 23:07:49 -0700 (61 minutes ago)
parents d1d1ed421717
children 2ed64ea19d81 fceb3a907260
files Python/pystate.c
diffstat 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) [+]


http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/5ccb6901cf95
---

Victor
___
Python-Dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com


Re: [Python-Dev] Windows XP, Python 3.5 and PEP 11

2014-06-17 Thread Mark Lawrence

On 17/06/2014 08:03, Victor Stinner wrote:

2014-06-17 7:01 GMT+02:00 Tim Golden :

On 17/06/2014 04:08, Zachary Ware wrote:

This was recently discussed in the "Moving Python 3.5 on Windows to a
new compiler" thread, where Martin declared XP support to be ended
[1].  I believe Tim Golden is the only resident Windows dev from whom
I haven't seen at least implicit agreement that XP doesn't need
further support, so I'd say our support for XP is well and truly dead
:)

In any case, surely anyone stuck with XP can be happy with Python 3.4.
I'm perfectly fine with 3.2 on Win2k!



I think we're justified in dropping XP support, for all the reasons others
have given.


Would you be ok to make this official by adding Windows XP explicitly
to the PEP 11? (I can do the change, I'm just asking for a
confirmation.)



From PEP 11 the entire "Microsoft Windows" section.  Please see the 
third paragraph.


"Microsoft has established a policy called product support lifecycle 
[1]. Each product's lifecycle has a mainstream support phase, where the 
product is generally commercially available, and an extended support 
phase, where paid support is still available, and certain bug fixes are 
released (in particular security fixes).


Python's Windows support now follows this lifecycle. A new feature 
release X.Y.0 will support all Windows releases whose extended support 
phase is not yet expired. Subsequent bug fix releases will support the 
same Windows releases as the original feature release (even if the 
extended support phase has ended).


Because of this policy, no further Windows releases need to be listed in 
this PEP.


Each feature release is built by a specific version of Microsoft Visual 
Studio. That version should have mainstream support when the release is 
made. Developers of extension modules will generally need to use the 
same Visual Studio release; they are concerned both with the 
availability of the versions they need to use, and with keeping the zoo 
of versions small. The Python source tree will keep unmaintained build 
files for older Visual Studio releases, for which patches will be 
accepted. Such build files will be removed from the source tree 3 years 
after the extended support for the compiler has ended (but continue to 
remain available in revision control)."


--
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask 
what you can do for our language.


Mark Lawrence

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com


___
Python-Dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com


Re: [Python-Dev] Criticism of execfile() removal in Python3

2014-06-17 Thread Chris Barker
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Nick Coghlan  wrote:

> > FWIW, when I started using python (15?) years ago -- the first thing I
> looked for was a way to "just run a file", at the interactive prompt, like
> I had in MATLAB. I found and used execfile().
>
> Yes, if people are looking for a MATLAB replacement, they want IPython
> rather than the default REPL.
>
I didn't meant o distract the conversation here -- what I meant was that
even before iPython existed, I still dropped using execfile("") it was
hardly ever the right thing.

And for the micropython example, I'm proposing that a micropython
interactive environment would be a really nice thing to build -- and worth
doing, even if execfile() was still there.

By the way: iPython, while coming from, and heavily used by, the
scientific/numeric computing community, is a great tool for all sorts of
other python development as well. But probably too heavyweight for
micropython.

-CHB




-- 

Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
Oceanographer

Emergency Response Division
NOAA/NOS/OR&R(206) 526-6959   voice
7600 Sand Point Way NE   (206) 526-6329   fax
Seattle, WA  98115   (206) 526-6317   main reception

[email protected]
___
Python-Dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com


[Python-Dev] Issue 21671: CVE-2014-0224 OpenSSL upgrade to 1.0.1h on Windows required

2014-06-17 Thread Yates, Andy (CS Houston, TX)
Python Dev,
Andy here. I have a Windows product based on Python and I'm getting hammered to 
release a version that includes the fix in OpenSSL 1.0.1h.  My product is built 
on a Windows system using Python installed from the standard Python installer 
at Python.org.  I would be grateful if I could get some advice on my options. 
Will Python.org be releasing a Windows installer with the fix any time soon or 
will it be at the next scheduled release in November?  If it is November, 
there's no way I can wait that long. Now what?  Would it be best to build my 
own Python? Is it possible to drop in new OpenSSL versions on Windows without 
rebuilding Python?  Looking for some guidance on how to handle these OpenSSL 
issues on Windows.

Thanks!
Andy Yates
___
Python-Dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com


Re: [Python-Dev] Issue 21671: CVE-2014-0224 OpenSSL upgrade to 1.0.1h on Windows required

2014-06-17 Thread Steve Dower
Yates, Andy (CS Houston, TX) wrote:
> Python Dev,
> Andy here. I have a Windows product based on Python and I'm getting hammered 
> to
> release a version that includes the fix in OpenSSL 1.0.1h. My product is built
> on a Windows system using Python installed from the standard Python installer 
> at
> Python.org. I would be grateful if I could get some advice on my options. Will
> Python.org be releasing a Windows installer with the fix any time soon or will
> it be at the next scheduled release in November? If it is November, there's no
> way I can wait that long. Now what? Would it be best to build my own Python? 
> Is
> it possible to drop in new OpenSSL versions on Windows without rebuilding
> Python? Looking for some guidance on how to handle these OpenSSL issues on
> Windows.

You'll only need to rebuild the _ssl and _hashlib extension modules with the 
new OpenSSL version. The easiest way to do this is to build from source (which 
has already been updated for 1.0.1h if you use the externals scripts in 
Tools\buildbot), and you should just be able to drop _ssl.pyd and _hashlib.pyd 
on top of a normal install.

Aside: I wonder if it's worth changing to dynamically linking to OpenSSL? It 
would make this kind of in-place upgrade easier when people need to do it. Any 
thoughts? (Does OpenSSL even support it?)

Cheers,
Steve

> Thanks!
> Andy Yates
___
Python-Dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com


Re: [Python-Dev] Issue 21671: CVE-2014-0224 OpenSSL upgrade to 1.0.1h on Windows required

2014-06-17 Thread M.-A. Lemburg
On 17.06.2014 20:27, Steve Dower wrote:
> Yates, Andy (CS Houston, TX) wrote:
>> Python Dev,
>> Andy here. I have a Windows product based on Python and I'm getting hammered 
>> to
>> release a version that includes the fix in OpenSSL 1.0.1h. My product is 
>> built
>> on a Windows system using Python installed from the standard Python 
>> installer at
>> Python.org. I would be grateful if I could get some advice on my options. 
>> Will
>> Python.org be releasing a Windows installer with the fix any time soon or 
>> will
>> it be at the next scheduled release in November? If it is November, there's 
>> no
>> way I can wait that long. Now what? Would it be best to build my own Python? 
>> Is
>> it possible to drop in new OpenSSL versions on Windows without rebuilding
>> Python? Looking for some guidance on how to handle these OpenSSL issues on
>> Windows.
> 
> You'll only need to rebuild the _ssl and _hashlib extension modules with the 
> new OpenSSL version. The easiest way to do this is to build from source 
> (which has already been updated for 1.0.1h if you use the externals scripts 
> in Tools\buildbot), and you should just be able to drop _ssl.pyd and 
> _hashlib.pyd on top of a normal install.
> 
> Aside: I wonder if it's worth changing to dynamically linking to OpenSSL? It 
> would make this kind of in-place upgrade easier when people need to do it. 
> Any thoughts? (Does OpenSSL even support it?)

Yes, no problem at all, but you'd still have to either do a new release
every time a new OpenSSL problem is found (don't think that's an
option for Python) or provide new compiled versions
compatible with the Python modules needing the OpenSSL libs or
instructions on how to build these.

Note that the hash routines are rarely affected by these OpenSSL
bugs. They usually only affect the SSL/TLS protocol parts.

Alternatively, you could make use of our pyOpenSSL distribution,
which includes pyOpenSSL and the OpenSSL libs (also for Windows):

http://www.egenix.com/products/python/pyOpenSSL/

We created this to address the problem of having to update
OpenSSL rather often. It doesn't support Python 3 yet, but
on the plus side, you do get OpenSSL libs which are compiled
with the same compiler versions used for the Python.org
installers.

-- 
Marc-Andre Lemburg
eGenix.com

Professional Python Services directly from the Source
>>> Python/Zope Consulting and Support ...http://www.egenix.com/
>>> mxODBC.Zope.Database.Adapter ... http://zope.egenix.com/
>>> mxODBC, mxDateTime, mxTextTools ...http://python.egenix.com/


::: Try our new mxODBC.Connect Python Database Interface for free ! 


   eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH  Pastor-Loeh-Str.48
D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg
   Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611
   http://www.egenix.com/company/contact/
___
Python-Dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com


Re: [Python-Dev] Issue 21671: CVE-2014-0224 OpenSSL upgrade to 1.0.1h on Windows required

2014-06-17 Thread Ned Deily
In article 
<81f84430ce0242e5bfa5b2264777d...@blupr03mb389.namprd03.prod.outlook.com
>,
 Steve Dower  wrote:
> You'll only need to rebuild the _ssl and _hashlib extension modules with the 
> new OpenSSL version. The easiest way to do this is to build from source 
> (which has already been updated for 1.0.1h if you use the externals scripts 
> in Tools\buildbot), and you should just be able to drop _ssl.pyd and 
> _hashlib.pyd on top of a normal install.

Should we consider doing a re-spin of the Windows installers for 2.7.7 
with 1.0.1h?  Or consider doing a 2.7.8 in the near future to address 
this and various 2.7.7 regressions that have been identified so far 
(Issues 21652 and 21672)?

> Aside: I wonder if it's worth changing to dynamically linking to OpenSSL? It 
> would make this kind of in-place upgrade easier when people need to do it. 
> Any thoughts? (Does OpenSSL even support it?)

OpenSSL is often dynamically linked in Python builds on various other 
platforms, for example, on Linux or OS X.

-- 
 Ned Deily,
 [email protected]

___
Python-Dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com


Re: [Python-Dev] Issue 21671: CVE-2014-0224 OpenSSL upgrade to 1.0.1h on Windows required

2014-06-17 Thread Benjamin Peterson
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014, at 12:03, Ned Deily wrote:
> In article 
> <81f84430ce0242e5bfa5b2264777d...@blupr03mb389.namprd03.prod.outlook.com
> >,
>  Steve Dower  wrote:
> > You'll only need to rebuild the _ssl and _hashlib extension modules with 
> > the 
> > new OpenSSL version. The easiest way to do this is to build from source 
> > (which has already been updated for 1.0.1h if you use the externals scripts 
> > in Tools\buildbot), and you should just be able to drop _ssl.pyd and 
> > _hashlib.pyd on top of a normal install.
> 
> Should we consider doing a re-spin of the Windows installers for 2.7.7 
> with 1.0.1h?  Or consider doing a 2.7.8 in the near future to address 
> this and various 2.7.7 regressions that have been identified so far 
> (Issues 21652 and 21672)?

I think we should do a 2.7.8 soon to pick up the openssl upgrade and
recent CGI security fix. I would like to see those two regressions fixed
first, though.
___
Python-Dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com


Re: [Python-Dev] Issue 21671: CVE-2014-0224 OpenSSL upgrade to 1.0.1h on Windows required

2014-06-17 Thread Antoine Pitrou

Le 17/06/2014 14:55, M.-A. Lemburg a écrit :


Alternatively, you could make use of our pyOpenSSL distribution,
which includes pyOpenSSL and the OpenSSL libs (also for Windows):

http://www.egenix.com/products/python/pyOpenSSL/

We created this to address the problem of having to update
OpenSSL rather often.


This is very nice, but does it also upgrade the OpenSSL version used by 
the _ssl and _hashlib modules?


Regards

Antoine.


___
Python-Dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com


Re: [Python-Dev] Issue 21671: CVE-2014-0224 OpenSSL upgrade to 1.0.1h on Windows required

2014-06-17 Thread M.-A. Lemburg
On 17.06.2014 22:36, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Le 17/06/2014 14:55, M.-A. Lemburg a écrit :
>>
>> Alternatively, you could make use of our pyOpenSSL distribution,
>> which includes pyOpenSSL and the OpenSSL libs (also for Windows):
>>
>> http://www.egenix.com/products/python/pyOpenSSL/
>>
>> We created this to address the problem of having to update
>> OpenSSL rather often.
> 
> This is very nice, but does it also upgrade the OpenSSL version used by the 
> _ssl and _hashlib modules?

On Unix, tt will if you load pyOpenSSL before importing _ssl or
_hashlib (and those modules are built as shared libs).

Alternatively, you can set LD_LIBRARY_PATH to lib/python2.7/OpenSSL
to have the system linker use the embedded libs before starting
Python. Then it will always use the up-to-date libs.

On Windows, this won't work, because _ssl and _hashlib are
statically linked against the OpenSSL libs.

-- 
Marc-Andre Lemburg
eGenix.com

Professional Python Services directly from the Source  (#1, Jun 17 2014)
>>> Python Projects, Consulting and Support ...   http://www.egenix.com/
>>> mxODBC.Zope/Plone.Database.Adapter ...   http://zope.egenix.com/
>>> mxODBC, mxDateTime, mxTextTools ...http://python.egenix.com/

2014-06-17: Released eGenix PyRun 2.0.0 ...   http://egenix.com/go58
2014-06-09: Released eGenix pyOpenSSL 0.13.3 ...  http://egenix.com/go57
2014-07-02: Python Meeting Duesseldorf ... 15 days to go

   eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH  Pastor-Loeh-Str.48
D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg
   Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611
   http://www.egenix.com/company/contact/
___
Python-Dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com


Re: [Python-Dev] Criticism of execfile() removal in Python3

2014-06-17 Thread Nick Coghlan
On 18 Jun 2014 01:59, "Chris Barker"  wrote:
>
> By the way: iPython, while coming from, and heavily used by, the
scientific/numeric computing community, is a great tool for all sorts of
other python development as well. But probably too heavyweight for
micropython.

(we're drifting off topic, so this will be my last addition to this
subthread)

Yes, as great as IPython is, when it's considered out of scope for the
standard installers, it's unlikely to be a good fit for a version of Python
aimed at running *on* a microcontroller. Running on a Raspberry Pi or
remote PC and *talking* to an associated microcontroller is a different
story, though.

Cheers,
Nick.

>
> -CHB
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
> Oceanographer
>
> Emergency Response Division
> NOAA/NOS/OR&R(206) 526-6959   voice
> 7600 Sand Point Way NE   (206) 526-6329   fax
> Seattle, WA  98115   (206) 526-6317   main reception
>
> [email protected]
___
Python-Dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com