Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 31 Jul 2018 23:40:19 +0000
From:      bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org
To:        python@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   [Bug 227836] sysutils/py-salt : update to 2018.3.0_2
Message-ID:  <bug-227836-21822-LafWVONTWR@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-227836-21822@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
References:  <bug-227836-21822@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D227836

Kubilay Kocak <koobs@FreeBSD.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Priority|---                         |Normal
           See Also|                            |https://github.com/saltstac
                   |                            |k/salt/issues/47006
             Status|New                         |Open
              Flags|                            |maintainer-feedback?(christ
                   |                            |er.edwards@gmail.com)
           Severity|Affects Only Me             |Affects Many People
                 CC|                            |christer.edwards@gmail.com,
                   |                            |python@FreeBSD.org
            Summary|sysutils/py-salt : update   |sysutils/py-salt : update
                   |to 2018.3.0_2 [maintainer]  |to 2018.3.0_2
           Keywords|                            |needs-qa

--- Comment #9 from Kubilay Kocak <koobs@FreeBSD.org> ---
@Christer=20

I don't believe the proposed approach will be appropriate:

1) Wont these compiled files be created at first run, leaving leftovers aft=
er
pkg-deletion? QA (poudriere) wouldn't pick these up as salt would not have =
run
between installation/deinstallation.

2) Has upstream fixed this issue upstream since reporting? If so, can you p=
oint
us to any other issue(s) and/or commit(s) ?

Also, please remember to set maintainer-approval flag to + on attachments f=
or
ports you maintain

Also noted from the upstream issue:

@jhujhiti says:

"Specifically, f_noext =3D f_noext.replace(BIN_PRE_EXT, '') is an attempt to
ignore the extra bits in the filename of a bytecode file, but it only remov=
es
cpython-36, so we end up loading a module named fx2.opt-1."

Has there been an attempt to fix that section of the code to not load/match=
 the
optimized file?=20

It appears that that is the root cause, and addressing that will be the
correct, appropriate and permanent fix.

--=20
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.=



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-227836-21822-LafWVONTWR>