Re: [patch] Do not open Python scripts twice #2 [Re: [RFC] Crash sourcing Python script on Windows]

[Doug Evans <dje@google.com>]

On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Jan Kratochvil
<jan.kratochvil@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:32:18 +0100, Doug Evans wrote:
>
> Skipped the discussion what can be more statistically useful and rather chose:
>
>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 6:36 AM, Jan Kratochvil > <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com> wrote:
>> > And it does not make sense to discuss what is better or worse, it is only
>> > important the standard is to not do directories relocation.
>>
>> Well, the important thing is to pick what works for the right reasons,
>> not introduce unwarranted incompatibilities, etc.
>
> If you want to patch other 10000 or how many packages so they all use
> directory relocations, you are free to do.  I prefer to remove the directory
> relocations from the single (maybe there are few of such) differing GDB
> package instead.

I don't deserve that. :-(

> As a next step of this discussion I can only submit a ticket to FESCo (Fedora
> Engineering Steering Committee) to validate whether my Fedora
> non-relocatability patch/idea is right or not.
>
>
>> [AIUC] I'd instead impose requiring chroot on Fedora package testers
>> than regular users.
>
> Normal users always use only the system installed GDB.  Anything else is
> unsupported.

Are contexts being conflated here?
I thought we were talking about what should be in FSF GDB, not Fedora GDB.

>> That still doesn't help me decide whether this patch should go in (as is).
>> If you wanted to punt on windows and just always impose a double
>> open(), I'd be ok with that, for example.
>
> Without MS-Windows the Joel's patch would not be invented and we would just
> always do single open() like before.  Or I do not understand it now.

s/impose a double open()/impose a double open() on windows/
and skip the autoconf test to try to decide whether the libcs are compatible
(which as currently written you yourself have "fear[s]" of).
[the word "fear" can suggest far greater seriousness than is warranted
here, but it's your word :-)]
OTOH, if someone comes up with a succinct and solid test, great.