[lldb-dev] Redundant six.py copy

Kamil Rytarowski via lldb-dev lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org
Mon May 2 14:36:23 PDT 2016

On 02.05.2016 18:40, Reid Kleckner wrote:
> On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Kamil Rytarowski via lldb-dev
> <lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>     It has been noted that LLDB installs its own copy of six.py
>     (third_party/Python/module/six/six.py) that conflicts with a
>     one lang/py-six (path in pkgsrc).
>     Could we reuse an external version shipped with a system?
>     are there plans to migrate to Python 3 and remove need for it?
>     How to address this conflict cleanly?
> LLDB should continue to ship its own copy of six.py. It's a single 900
> line source file. Avoiding this duplication is not worth the headache of
> asking users to install dependencies. I can't imagine a world where
> checking in your own copy *wasn't* the intended distribution model for
> six.py.

I don't agree here, built in libraries have security and maintainability
issues downstream. Correct packaging is about removing these builtin
redundant libraries and link with upstream ones. And in case of a
vulnerability (or other kind of bug) upgrade a dependency for everybody
at once.

> I'm sure LLDB would take patches to mitigate the namespace conflict. For
> example, LLDB could do something like "from lldbutils import six"
> instead of "import six", or we could avoid putting it on sys.path if we
> notice a system installation of six.

Dynamic detection of system capabilities isn't reproducible. Also there
is a scenario of installing lldb and later one of other packages
installing global py-six.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/attachments/20160502/1b1504ca/attachment.sig>

More information about the lldb-dev mailing list