Ticket UUID: | 2316115 | |||
Title: | TIP 339 "Case-Insensitive Package Names" | |||
Type: | Patch | Version: | TIP Implementation | |
Submitter: | andreas_kupries | Created on: | 2008-11-19 23:53:51 | |
Subsystem: | 39. Package Manager | Assigned To: | dgp | |
Priority: | 7 High | Severity: | ||
Status: | Open | Last Modified: | 2008-12-18 18:51:34 | |
Resolution: | None | Closed By: | ||
Closed on: | ||||
Description: |
This entry will hold the reference implementation for TIP #339 "Case-Insensitive Package Names". | |||
User Comments: |
dkf added on 2008-12-18 18:51:34:
Not a release blocker; dropping prio back andreas_kupries added on 2008-12-10 00:51:29: Ah. Now I see it, thank you. Order of the exact names used ... Interesting. Yes, that is likely a flaw in some of the modified search code. For now I have printed your comments, the one from late yesterday and today's, and will think about them. I should note that even with the ensemble porposal not fully handling all packages, i.e. C-level calls not intercepted and known, it should be possible to use this type of wrapping for basic experimentation with various possibilities. dgp added on 2008-12-10 00:24:46: They are just two separate runs of the same program. The intent is to demonstrate that the patched HEAD has varying behavior depending on the order of differing case attempts. I haven't dug deeper to see why, or whether this is a general flaw or one limited to the particular Tcltest/tcltest example. Just reporting the empirical discovery. If/when you get back to this, I'd be curious if you're unable to duplicate it. andreas_kupries added on 2008-12-10 00:01:58: What is the difference between the second and third 'make runtest' ? There doesn't seem to be any except for the results. It seems to be implied that both are for HEAD+patch and that just doing 'make runtest' a second time the results wrong, implying some leakage between session through the file system ? Note: With the TIP about to be defeated I am putting this on the back-burner. Better spending time understanding dgp's analysis, and drawing up something which addresses the problems he has with the original TIP. Should that be able to reuse code from here, unclear right now, then the problem will have to be investigated. dgp added on 2008-12-09 23:04:12: Tried a little bit of testing to see how the patches behave in the presence of name conflicts. In the 8.6a3 release: $ make runtest ... % package require Tcltest 8.6a3 % package require tcltest 2.3.0 That's the baseline for how things used to work. Now in HEAD + this patch: $ make runtest ... % package require tcltest 2.3.0 % package require Tcltest 2.3.0 Ok, that seems to be what I would expect. However... $ make runtest ... % package require Tcltest can't find package Tcltest % package require tcltest can't find package tcltest Something seems wrong with the implementation. andreas_kupries added on 2008-11-27 06:00:51: First implementations now available for 8.5 and 8.6 branches. Missing: Need additional test cases to show the case-insensitivity. andreas_kupries added on 2008-11-27 05:59:24: File Deleted - 302785: andreas_kupries added on 2008-11-27 05:59:02: File Added - 303120: tip-339-tcl85.patch andreas_kupries added on 2008-11-27 05:58:19: File Added - 303119: tip-339-tcl86.patch andreas_kupries added on 2008-11-25 03:57:26: File Added - 302785: tip-339-core86.patch andreas_kupries added on 2008-11-22 07:23:41: File Added - 302464: tip-339-core85.patch andreas_kupries added on 2008-11-22 05:23:21: File Added - 302452: tip-339-core84.patch |