Python library should be installed writable

[jdemeyer]

BPO	34245
Nosy	@ned-deily, @methane, @jdemeyer
PRs	bpo-34245: install Python libraries with more standard 0755 mode #8492

^{Note: these values reflect the state of the issue at the time it was migrated and might not reflect the current state.}

Show more details

GitHub fields:

assignee = None
closed_at = <Date 2018-12-09.07:50:24.650>
created_at = <Date 2018-07-27.07:48:30.376>
labels = ['build', '3.8']
title = 'Python library should be installed writable'
updated_at = <Date 2018-12-09.07:50:24.648>
user = 'https://github.com/jdemeyer'

bugs.python.org fields:

activity = <Date 2018-12-09.07:50:24.648>
actor = 'ned.deily'
assignee = 'none'
closed = True
closed_date = <Date 2018-12-09.07:50:24.650>
closer = 'ned.deily'
components = ['Build']
creation = <Date 2018-07-27.07:48:30.376>
creator = 'jdemeyer'
dependencies = []
files = []
hgrepos = []
issue_num = 34245
keywords = ['patch']
message_count = 7.0
messages = ['322469', '322475', '322476', '322478', '322486', '331412', '331413']
nosy_count = 3.0
nosy_names = ['ned.deily', 'methane', 'jdemeyer']
pr_nums = ['8492']
priority = 'normal'
resolution = 'fixed'
stage = 'resolved'
status = 'closed'
superseder = None
type = None
url = 'https://bugs.python.org/issue34245'
versions = ['Python 3.8']

[jdemeyer]

In Makefile.pre.in, there is this:

# Shared libraries must be installed with executable mode on some systems;
# rather than figuring out exactly which, we always give them executable mode.
# Also, making them read-only seems to be a good idea...
INSTALL_SHARED= ${INSTALL} -m 555

Installing libraries read-only is very non-standard (I'm not aware of any other build system which does that). Python should just use the more standard 755 install mode.

[methane]

Isn't it useful to avoid accidental change while open files with editor for just reading?

Is there any real world problem about read-only library?

[jdemeyer]

Isn't it useful to avoid accidental change while open files with editor for just reading?

Why would that argument apply to a binary file (and only to binary files)?

Is there any real world problem about read-only library?

It makes it slightly harder to remove a Python installation. Depending on the OS, you'll get a failure or require some additional confirmation.

Furthermore, it's very non-standard. Even if that's not a problem by itself, Python should just install things in the standard way.

[jdemeyer]

Also, some tools may want to edit the library after installation. Rebasing on Cygwin is an example of that.

[methane]

On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 6:25 PM Jeroen Demeyer <report@bugs.python.org> wrote:

> Isn't it useful to avoid accidental change while open files with editor for just reading?

Why would that argument apply to a binary file (and only to binary files)?

I didn't notice it's used only for binary libraries.

> Is there any real world problem about read-only library?

It makes it slightly harder to remove a Python installation. Depending on the OS, you'll get a failure or require some additional confirmation.

Make sense.

Furthermore, it's very non-standard. Even if that's not a problem by itself, Python should just install things in the standard way.

It's not true if there are some merits and there are no real problem.

[ned-deily]

New changeset 25648d0 by Ned Deily (jdemeyer) in branch 'master':
bpo-34245: install Python shared library with more standard 0755 mode (GH-8492)
25648d0

[ned-deily]

Thanks for the PR. I've merged it for release in 3.8.0. As I commented on the PR, I don't think we should backport this; the current behavior has been around for many years and was working as designed so it's not really a bug.