Re: Using Py_SetPythonHome

Jan Kratochvil
2012-09-19T08:04:40Z

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:37:47 +0200, Doug Evans wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 19:06:57 +0200, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> > and the last one with Python upstream decision:
> > http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2012-05/msg01041.html
>
> It's not clear to me that upstream has made a decision (or that they
> sufficiently understand our use-case).

It is important to make clear what is "our use-case". My use-case is standard
GNU/Linux distribution. Joel's use-case is separate unconfigured directory
with bundled various libraries incl. Python. Not sure which one is yours.

I believe the default configuration should be suitable for GNU/Linux
distribution and not for bundled uninstalled pack of files. We probably do
not agree in this item I guess.

I (plus all GNU/Linux distros should) already have to disable
relocate_gdb_directory to make 'gdb' suitable for GNU/Linux distribution:
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/gdb.git/commit/?id=a5cb59e730e456e3dbf1a834027453e282046b45

For the bundled uninstalled pack of files I find OK to use Py_SetPythonHome
although only in the case $PYTHONHOME is not set. If $PYTHONHOME is set then
GDB should not override it. This override is what was decided in:
http://bugs.python.org/issue14956#msg161959

There should be decided - also for relocate_gdb_directory:
* What is the target installation layout for: ./configure; make; make install
* Whether there are other installation layouts which should be made available
by some: ./configure --enable-xxx=yyy; make; make install
* For Python: upstream mentions some virtualenv/venv which should
reportedly obsolete all the Python-specific hacks we discuss here.
http://bugs.python.org/issue14956
But that also means Python-3.x requirement which GDB is not compatible with.

Regards,
Jan