Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 969389
anaconda-tb file present after installation - IOError: [Errno 5] Input/output error
Last modified: 2016-01-31 21:22:49 EST
Traceback (most recent call first):
File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/atexit.py", line 29, in _run_exitfuncs
print >> sys.stderr, "Error in atexit._run_exitfuncs:"
IOError: [Errno 5] Input/output error
/usr/lib64/python2.7/atexit.py is owned by the python package, not anaconda. Reassigning.
I'm unable to reproduce this with current composes of rhel 7. Richard, can you still see this issue?
It's quite hard to judge from the traceback file, but:
1) David, the fact that python package owns that file doesn't really mean that the problem is in the package. Do you have any more reasons why to believe that error is in Python?
2) From my experience, this errno can be raised when you have parent Python process that spawns child processes via subprocess module, but then the parent process and its terminal are closed => child processes have no terminal to write to. If this is the case, the problem could be pretty much anywhere where anaconda spawns subprocesses...
*** Bug 1014971 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
In reply to the comment on bug 1014971, anaconda reboots the system during the atexit calls, so yes, the terminal has been closed. That's not a good reason for atexit failing.
(In reply to David Shea from comment #5)
> In reply to the comment on bug 1014971, anaconda reboots the system during
> the atexit calls, so yes, the terminal has been closed. That's not a good
> reason for atexit failing.
Actually, it's a perfect reason to fail. Python can't check whether the terminal is open before every print. So I guess this is Anaconda's problem and should be reassigned back to Anaconda, do you agree?
Reassigning to Anaconda. As noted in the previous comment, Python can't check whether the terminal is open before every print. This should be checked in Anaconda.
Is this bug still reproducible with any of the recent composes? And if so, how? I cannot find any way to do so.
No. If I'll encounter it again I'll reopen this bug.