On 2009-10-09, Chris Withers ch...@simplistix.co.uk wrote:
Huh? Why? I just don't buy this. We've effectively had a bdfl pronouncement
that setuptools is dead. distribute 0.6 *is* now the live supported
setuptools so any project that relies on the package called setuptools
should now be using
On 2009-10-09, Chris Withers ch...@simplistix.co.uk wrote:
Reinout van Rees wrote:
I'm still not 100% sure whether it is safe to put distribute in the
install_requires list of a package right now, however.
As with setuptools, why do you think you need to?
Namespace packages. You get
Reinout van Rees rein...@vanrees.org writes:
Time for the BDFL to flip some ownership bits for setuptools in pypi.
You appear to think the BDFL has powers outside the Python language and
extending to third-party projects that are independent.
Regardless of what I think of Setuptools or
I'm probably overlooking it somewhere in the documentation: should I specify a
distribute dependency as distribute or Distribute?
I'm used to lowercase so that's what I'm using till now, but I've spotted a
Capital Letter somewhere... So which one is preferred?
Reinout
--
Reinout van Rees -
On 2009-10-12, Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
Reinout van Rees rein...@vanrees.org writes:
Time for the BDFL to flip some ownership bits for setuptools in pypi.
You appear to think the BDFL has powers outside the Python language and
extending to third-party projects that are
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Reinout van Rees rein...@vanrees.org wrote:
I'm probably overlooking it somewhere in the documentation: should I specify a
distribute dependency as distribute or Distribute?
I'm used to lowercase so that's what I'm using till now, but I've spotted a
Capital
Hi.
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 9:10 AM, Reinout van Rees rein...@vanrees.org wrote:
- When using buildout, I get lots of warnings. The 1.4.2 isn't out yet, but I
also won't update all old projects' pinned zc.buildout version so I'm stuck
with warnings for a time.
Note that buildout is only
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 12:17:10AM +0200, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
this is the PEP for setup.cfg, as requested :
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0390
Please comment,
, =, =, and python_hexversion are not mentioned, is this
intentional? (I'm not sure on what the result of feedback on this
was)
10/05/2009 02:08 PM, Rakotomandimby Mihamina:
I have planned to do it on my side once for debian package using a
recipe that was building the debian tree once the buildout was made,
but this work
was not finished. I can send you what I have if it can help you
Please, do.
[Up]
--
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 9:10 AM, Reinout van Rees rein...@vanrees.org wrote:
On 2009-10-09, Tarek Ziadé ziade.ta...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 2:03 PM, kiorky kio...@cryptelium.net wrote:
AND no, virtualenv must continue to provide setuptools, backward
compatibility, you know?
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 2:29 AM, Ian Bicking i...@colorstudy.com wrote:
The grammar in Context-dependant sections indicates possible EXPR
values. Because the in operator is supported, I would assume that
tuples should also be allowed.
in here is restricted to string. It was added so we could
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:01 AM, Floris Bruynooghe
floris.bruynoo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 12:17:10AM +0200, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
this is the PEP for setup.cfg, as requested :
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0390
Please comment,
, =, =, and python_hexversion are not
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Rakotomandimby Mihamina
miham...@gulfsat.mg wrote:
10/05/2009 02:08 PM, Rakotomandimby Mihamina:
I have planned to do it on my side once for debian package using a
recipe that was building the debian tree once the buildout was made,
but this work
was not
Reinout van Rees wrote:
On 2009-10-08, Ian Bicking i...@colorstudy.com wrote:
So after creating, say, version 0.3.1, I always mark a package as 0.3.2dev.
But this is annoying, you might never create a version 0.3.2 (e.g., 0.4
might be the next level). So, it would be better to use something
On Mon, October 12, 2009 12:24 am, Tarek Ziad? ziade.ta...@gmail.com wrote:
--
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 00:17:10 +0200
From: Tarek Ziad? ziade.ta...@gmail.com
To: distutils-sig@python.org
Subject: [Distutils] PEP 390 - new format from setup.cfg
Hey
On 12/10/09 05:24, Lennart Regebro wrote:
2009/10/11 Michael Whapplesmwhapp...@aim.com:
[...]
). Also anyway what would the reason be for a user to run tests on the
binary module, I (or another developer in the cases of modified versions)
should have run the tests before distributing
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 4:45 AM, Tarek Ziadé ziade.ta...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 2:29 AM, Ian Bicking i...@colorstudy.com wrote:
The grammar in Context-dependant sections indicates possible EXPR
values. Because the in operator is supported, I would assume that
tuples should
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Ian Bicking i...@colorstudy.com wrote:
If you don't have tuples or , , etc, it seems like something like
Python version 2.6 or higher is hard to express. You'd have to
enumerate 2.6, 2.7, and speculate on 2.8 and 2.9.
python_version not in '2.3,2.4,2.5'
(it's
2009/10/12 Michael Whapples mwhapp...@aim.com:
In that case I would ask them to download the source distribution and run
the tests there, they probably will want the source distribution as I may
need to ask them to apply a patch and test it out (they have the environment
I didn't
OK, I didn't realise the .py files are included in a binary
distribution, I understood it to be that the .pyc file was enough and so
had followed through that the .py file wouldn't be included in a binary
distribution like it is typically done in java (java tends not to
include the .java
Michael Whapples wrote:
OK, I didn't realise the .py files are included in a binary
distribution, I understood it to be that the .pyc file was enough and
so had followed through that the .py file wouldn't be included in a
binary distribution like it is typically done in java (java tends not
2009/10/12 Michael Whapples mwhapp...@aim.com:
This
leads to some more general questions about python and distributing modules
(eg. why do we need binary distributions (bdist_egg, bdist, etc) when a
source distribution should be fine and do all needed
You don't. As mentioned, binary
I've just updated the setuptools trunk and branch with a large number
of bug fixes, preparing to release 0.6c10. These fixes include fixes
for all the setuptools bugs currently marked in-progress or
testing on the setuptools bug tracker as of this moment, and I'd
like your help in ensuring
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 10:25 PM, P.J. Eby p...@telecommunity.com wrote:
But before you do that, be sure to uninstall Distribute completely. In
particular, please note that these changes are NOT a merge from Distribute;
upon review, many of the tracker-submitted patches used as a basis for
On Monday,2009-10-12, at 14:25 , P.J. Eby wrote:
(E.g., one of the changes I made fixes three superficially
unrelated issues in the setuptools bug tracker.)
That would be:
http://bugs.python.org/setuptools/issue17
and
http://bugs.python.org/setuptools/issue65
Right?
What was the third?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Withers wrote:
Huh? Why? I just don't buy this. We've effectively had a bdfl
pronouncement that setuptools is dead. distribute 0.6 *is* now the live
supported setuptools so any project that relies on the package called
setuptools should
Reinout van Rees wrote:
OTOH, grumbl ... horrible breakage ... essential piece of infrastructure ...
allowed to persist I'm pretty grumpy right now.
I'd just like to point out that if anyone finds setuptools to
be essential to them, it's because they've chosen to make
themselves
At 08:09 AM 10/12/2009 +, Reinout van Rees wrote:
OTOH, grumbl ... horrible breakage ... essential piece of infrastructure ...
allowed to persist I'm pretty grumpy right now.
Relax, take a deep breath, and then easy_install setuptools==dev or
setuptools==dev06. ;-)
It turned out
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 12:35 AM, P.J. Eby p...@telecommunity.com wrote:
At 08:09 AM 10/12/2009 +, Reinout van Rees wrote:
OTOH, grumbl ... horrible breakage ... essential piece of infrastructure
...
allowed to persist I'm pretty grumpy right now.
Relax, take a deep breath, and
On Oct 12, 2009, at 4:25 PM, P.J. Eby wrote:
But before you do that, be sure to uninstall Distribute completely
Damn if I understand this...such a long time waiting for all these bug
fixes...so little action, so much angst...
Then that all that effort going into the Distribute fork, so
At 07:28 PM 10/12/2009 -0400, sstein...@gmail.com wrote:
we must uninstall Distribute completely get these fixes.
That's Distribute's doing, not mine. As I understand it, their
package includes a 'setuptools' package, and if it's on your
sys.path, then installing the new version of
sstein...@gmail.com kirjoitti:
On Oct 12, 2009, at 4:25 PM, P.J. Eby wrote:
But before you do that, be sure to uninstall Distribute completely
Damn if I understand this...such a long time waiting for all these bug
fixes...so little action, so much angst...
Then that all that effort going
On Oct 12, 2009, at 7:48 PM, P.J. Eby wrote:
At 07:28 PM 10/12/2009 -0400, sstein...@gmail.com wrote:
we must uninstall Distribute completely get these fixes.
That's Distribute's doing, not mine. As I understand it, their
package includes a 'setuptools' package, and if it's on your
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 6:48 PM, P.J. Eby p...@telecommunity.com wrote:
At 07:28 PM 10/12/2009 -0400, sstein...@gmail.com wrote:
we must uninstall Distribute completely get these fixes.
That's Distribute's doing, not mine. As I understand it, their package
includes a 'setuptools' package,
2009/10/13 sstein...@gmail.com sstein...@gmail.com:
Then suddenly out of the blue, everything is fixed in setuptools 06c10 and
we must uninstall Distribute completely get these fixes.
Well yes. We knew this would happen sooner or later. It's not a problem.
We all know it would be better if PJE
35 matches
Mail list logo
