Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #13936

Re: Advice wanted: handling weird vendoring situation

Show all headers | View raw

> I realise now that this "nice" solution won't work, as the standard
> library code says:
> 
> import socketserver
> 
> so modifying sys.path will just change the value of
> sys.modules["socketserver"].  However, the vendored code instead loads
> this module to sys.modules["_pydev_imps._pydev_SocketServer"] or
> something like that, deliberately avoiding interfering with
> sys.modules["socketserver"].

It seems to me that the "correct" solution would be to motivate upstream
not to vendor anything in their source tree. If they really need
vendoring to avoid compatibility issues with various environments, they
should do so only when building releases. It still wouldn't solve the
problem of incompatible system modules, but at least it would make it
clearer which versions they require and why.

Perhaps they have a maintenance script for updating the vendored
dependencies? You could use that to find out how to reverse the changes,
or start from a clean slate?

Back to linux.debian.maint.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Advice wanted: handling weird vendoring situation Julian Gilbey <julian@d-and-j.net> - 2022-02-07 22:30 +0100
  Re: Advice wanted: handling weird vendoring situation Julian Gilbey <julian@d-and-j.net> - 2022-02-08 08:10 +0100
    Re: Advice wanted: handling weird vendoring situation Gregor Riepl <onitake@gmail.com> - 2022-02-09 19:40 +0100
      Re: Advice wanted: handling weird vendoring situation Julian Gilbey <julian@d-and-j.net> - 2022-02-12 22:30 +0100
        Re: Advice wanted: handling weird vendoring situation Gregor Riepl <onitake@gmail.com> - 2022-02-13 12:10 +0100
          Re: Advice wanted: handling weird vendoring situation Julian Gilbey <julian@d-and-j.net> - 2022-02-16 17:30 +0100

csiph-web