Tarek Ziadé wrote:
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Chris Withers ch...@simplistix.co.uk wrote:
[..]
Yes to all of the above, could we also please have:
Mailing-List-URL
+1
Change-Log-URL
I don't see a lot of projects with a changelog file available online,
...except every single
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 10:32 PM, Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
Tarek Ziadé ziade.ta...@gmail.com writes:
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au
wrote:
Stick to a simple standard of “this file contains the changelog”,
which will let people
P.J. Eby wrote:
At 09:15 PM 11/29/2009 +0100, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
2009/11/29 P.J. Eby p...@telecommunity.com:
[..]
WSGI and setuptools have been widely adopted in spite of their
technical and
ideological flaws, because they had good incentive engineering.
Or, in other words, because
I've asked before about bundling Distribute. But now I ask, is it possible to
pull out the `pkg_resources` module from the Distribute folder and bundle only
that with my project?
Also, is that `pkg_resources` module different than the one that comes with
setuptools?
Thanks,
Ram.
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:20 PM, Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
I don't understand the distinction you're making here. What is the
difference between “in your distribution” versus “in the end”?
It can be a file in your sdist, as long as its content is made
available to the
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
Tarek Ziadé ziade.ta...@gmail.com writes:
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 10:32 PM, Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au
wrote:
[…] I thought we'd just agreed in this thread: that the changelog
should be *in a separate
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 3:09 PM, Ram Rachum cool...@cool-rr.com wrote:
I've asked before about bundling Distribute. But now I ask, is it possible to
pull out the `pkg_resources` module from the Distribute folder and bundle only
that with my project?
Technically, yes : it's a standalone module
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:49:55AM +0100, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
so I don't see much of a problem with breaking
forward compatibility in this case.
Indeed, but equally so I don't see an advantage in breaking forward
compatibility in this case (i.e. underscores in PEP 386 don't allow us
to express
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Tarek Ziadé ziade.ta...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 3:09 PM, Ram Rachum cool...@cool-rr.com wrote:
I've asked before about bundling Distribute. But now I ask, is it
possible to
pull out the `pkg_resources` module from the Distribute folder and
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 5:41 PM, cool-RR cool...@cool-rr.com wrote:
[..]
What would be the use case for this ? I don't think it's the best
practice to bundle
other projects modules like that in most cases.
Up to now I've been requiring my users to install Distribute, but one of
them
You didn't answer my question about whether I can just yank out
`pkg_resources.py` and use it.
What would be the use case for this ? I don't think it's the best
practice to bundle
other projects modules like that in most cases.
Up to now I've been requiring my users to install
At 02:09 PM 11/30/2009 +, Ram Rachum wrote:
I've asked before about bundling Distribute. But now I ask, is it possible to
pull out the `pkg_resources` module from the Distribute folder and
bundle only
that with my project?
If your project is a standalone application with a completely
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 7:57 PM, P.J. Eby p...@telecommunity.com wrote:
At 02:09 PM 11/30/2009 +, Ram Rachum wrote:
I've asked before about bundling Distribute. But now I ask, is it possible
to
pull out the `pkg_resources` module from the Distribute folder and bundle
only
that with my
At 07:16 PM 11/30/2009 +0200, cool-RR wrote:
Well, that sort of sucks. And this is my motivation for bundling the
`pkg_resources` from Distribute. The last thing I want is having my
software fail for my users because of setuptools while I have
Distribute installed locally and can't see the bug
2009/11/30 P.J. Eby p...@telecommunity.com
At 07:16 PM 11/30/2009 +0200, cool-RR wrote:
Well, that sort of sucks. And this is my motivation for bundling the
`pkg_resources` from Distribute. The last thing I want is having my software
fail for my users because of setuptools while I have
At 08:00 PM 11/30/2009 +0200, cool-RR wrote:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 7:57 PM, P.J. Eby
mailto:p...@telecommunity.comp...@telecommunity.com wrote:
At 02:09 PM 11/30/2009 +, Ram Rachum wrote:
I've asked before about bundling Distribute. But now I ask, is it possible to
pull out the
2009/11/30 P.J. Eby p...@telecommunity.com:
At 07:16 PM 11/30/2009 +0200, cool-RR wrote:
Well, that sort of sucks. And this is my motivation for bundling the
`pkg_resources` from Distribute. The last thing I want is having my software
fail for my users because of setuptools while I have
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 4:52 PM, Tarek Ziadé ziade.ta...@gmail.com wrote:
As suggested in Catalog-SIG by some people, I would like to propose
the addition of three more fields for 1.2:
Repository-URL
A string containing the URL for the package's repository.
Example:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 18:16, cool-RR cool...@cool-rr.com wrote:
You didn't answer my question about whether I can just yank out
`pkg_resources.py` and use it.
Yes, but then it will again shadow the pkg_resources.py from
setuptools/Distribute, so why your customer would be more happy with
that
At 08:10 PM 11/30/2009 +0100, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
2009/11/30 P.J. Eby p...@telecommunity.com:
At 07:16 PM 11/30/2009 +0200, cool-RR wrote:
Well, that sort of sucks. And this is my motivation for bundling the
`pkg_resources` from Distribute. The last thing I want is having
my software
fail
At 08:10 PM 11/30/2009 +0200, cool-RR wrote:
Now I'm confused. If that's true, what reason is there to use
Distribute's `pkg_resources` at all?
Unless there's some bug they've fixed in it that nobody has reported
here or on the setuptools bug tracker, there isn't any.
(And of course, if
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 19:10, cool-RR cool...@cool-rr.com wrote:
Now I'm confused. If that's true, what reason is there to use Distribute's
`pkg_resources` at all?
Same reason as for using distribute in the first place: You use it if
you encounter bugs in setuptools (or use Python 3).
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 20:30, Lennart Regebro rege...@gmail.com wrote:
Distribute doesn't have additional features.
(Well, of any great significance anyway).
--
Lennart Regebro: Python, Zope, Plone, Grok
http://regebro.wordpress.com/
+33 661 58 14 64
At 08:59 PM 11/30/2009 +0200, cool-RR wrote:
Okay. But I don't use `require()`, the only thing I need from
`pkg_resources` is the ability to extract resources from folders. So
will there be any problem if I bundle it for that?
If that's all you're using, probably not. In any case, if that's
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 8:25 PM, P.J. Eby p...@telecommunity.com wrote:
At 08:10 PM 11/30/2009 +0100, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
2009/11/30 P.J. Eby p...@telecommunity.com:
At 07:16 PM 11/30/2009 +0200, cool-RR wrote:
Well, that sort of sucks. And this is my motivation for bundling the
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 7:10 PM, cool-RR cool...@cool-rr.com wrote:
2009/11/30 P.J. Eby p...@telecommunity.com
At 07:16 PM 11/30/2009 +0200, cool-RR wrote:
Well, that sort of sucks. And this is my motivation for bundling the
`pkg_resources` from Distribute. The last thing I want is having
Hi!
I have a virtualenv created with --no-site-packages option and I'm going
to install there Django and some required libs using buildout. The
problematic library is PIL. Here is my buildout.cfg
[buildout]
parts = PIL django
[django]
recipe = djangorecipe
version = 1.1
project = project
eggs
What I was thinking is to put it in its own package, and then import it
like `from my_package import pkg_resources`.
Would that still be problematic?
Not if your modules are the only ones using any pkg_resources APIs within a
given program. But consider what happens if both your package
On Nov 30, 2009, at 2:39 PM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
maintainer that has been AWOL for most of the time in the past 2 years)
AWOL is an acronym for absent without leave or absent without official
leave.
Yes, it sucked that setuptools got abandoned but nobody had to give him leave.
S
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 8:17 PM, Ian Bicking i...@colorstudy.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 4:52 PM, Tarek Ziadé ziade.ta...@gmail.com wrote:
As suggested in Catalog-SIG by some people, I would like to propose
the addition of three more fields for 1.2:
Repository-URL
A string
Tarek Ziadé ziade.ta...@gmail.com writes:
So at the end, maybe we could just keep Repository-Browse-URL and
drop the other one unless
we can come up with some use cases for automatic processing of the url.
That would be a good start, yes. It keeps clear the distinction between
the repository
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 01:17:18PM -0600, Ian Bicking wrote:
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 4:52 PM, Tarek Ziadé ziade.ta...@gmail.com wrote:
As suggested in Catalog-SIG by some people, I would like to propose
the addition of three more fields for 1.2:
Repository-URL
A string containing
Floris Bruynooghe floris.bruynoo...@gmail.com writes:
How about two fields? Repository-VCS and Repository-URL where the
first is something like git, hg, svn etc.
Which still leaves the ‘Repository-Browse-URL’ field, making three in
total.
--
\“Science doesn't work by vote
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 20:39:32 +0100, Tarek Ziadé ziade.ta...@gmail.com
wrote:
The other big difference is that if you happen to have another problem
with it in the future, you can count on an actively
maintained, community-driven project. (IOW not locked by a single
maintainer that has been
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 4:30 PM, Tarek Ziadé ziade.ta...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 8:17 PM, Ian Bicking i...@colorstudy.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 4:52 PM, Tarek Ziadé ziade.ta...@gmail.com
wrote:
As suggested in Catalog-SIG by some people, I would like to propose
35 matches
Mail list logo
