No, in my case the original tests with 2.4 and 2.5 were done with the Ubuntu-provided (Edgy) versions, unmodified from their apt-get install state.  But your comments are interesting.  I just rebuilt 2.5 by hand from source on the same system, and this is what I get:

tlon[bin]> ./python2.5 ~/code/python/inspect_bug.py
Version info: (2, 5, 0, 'final', 0)

File for `inspect`       : /home/fperez/tmp/local/lib/python2.5/inspect.py
File for `inspect.iscode`: /home/fperez/tmp/local/lib/python2.5/inspect.py
Do these match? True
OK


tlon[bin]> ./python2.5 ~/code/python/inspect_bug_details.py
Python version info: (2, 5, 0, 'final', 0)
File info for `inspect.iscode function`:
  /home/fperez/tmp/local//lib/python2.5/inspect.py

So basically it seems that there's a difference in the value of the func_code.co_filename object attribute depending on how the build was made.

At this point I'm not really sure if this should be considered a Python bug or an Ubuntu one...  Perhaps the Python build process can be made more robust, I simply don't know.

But the end-user behavior /is/ a bug, so it would be nice to know how to fix it.


Thanks for your info!