Lennart Regebro rege...@gmail.com writes:
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 10:01, Glyph Lefkowitz gl...@twistedmatrix.com
wrote:
This is precisely what I meant to recommend: Parcel would be a
good replacement word for the Python-specific meaning of
distribution. I'm sorry if I was ambiguous and
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Suno Ano suno@sunoano.org wrote:
John I would also add the common use of the term distribution to
John that glossary as well.
Yes, true that, at http://python.org/download/ we have *distributions*
to download.
I figure the definition for *Installer*
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 4:54 AM, Lennart Regebro rege...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 10:01, Glyph Lefkowitz gl...@twistedmatrix.com
wrote:
This is precisely what I meant to recommend: Parcel would be a good
replacement word for the Python-specific meaning of distribution. I'm
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 5:53 AM, Tarek Ziadé ziade.ta...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au
wrote:
Lennart Regebro rege...@gmail.com writes:
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 10:01, Glyph Lefkowitz gl...@twistedmatrix.com
wrote:
This is
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 6:53 AM, Tarek Ziadé ziade.ta...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au
wrote:
At this point, people are just going to keep calling this entity a
“package”, consistent with the majority of other languages and systems
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 16:24, Brad Allen bradallen...@gmail.com wrote:
I had thought 'egg' was just another distribution format, an
alternative to tarball, etc. But I have heard people at my local user
group use it to mean 'module distribution'.
Yeah, there is some confusion there. As I
At 05:32 PM 1/10/2010 +0100, Lennart Regebro wrote:
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 16:24, Brad Allen bradallen...@gmail.com wrote:
I had thought 'egg' was just another distribution format, an
alternative to tarball, etc. But I have heard people at my local user
group use it to mean 'module
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Brad Allen bradallen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 5:53 AM, Tarek Ziadé ziade.ta...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au
wrote:
Lennart Regebro rege...@gmail.com writes:
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010
On 10/01/2010 18:46, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Brad Allenbradallen...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, it's a big change but common usage is a strong tailwind which
could make it easier. It could start with a PEP and a survey link sent
to python-announce. Personally I
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Rafael Villar Burke (Pachi)
pa...@rvburke.com wrote:
That's why I think 1) is easier and find very compelling John Gabrielle's
idea of qualifying the terms package as module package and (module)
distribution as distribution package. These point to the two
Lennart Regebro rege...@gmail.com writes:
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 12:40, Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
At this point, people are just going to keep calling this entity a
“package”, consistent with the majority of other languages and
systems out there.
I'm not sure that's a
Tarek Ziadé ziade.ta...@gmail.com writes:
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au
wrote:
At this point, people are just going to keep calling this entity a
“package”, consistent with the majority of other languages and
systems out there.
Who is people.
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 18:38, P.J. Eby p...@telecommunity.com wrote:
(Also, since Python 2.5+ distutils generate .egg-info files, all
distutils-installed module distributions from Python 2.5 on are technically
eggs.)
Aha... Stuck in Plone-land, I'm still mostly on 2.4. :-)
That means that
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 22:02, Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
You might be saying something tautologically true: When the terms
“package” and “distribution” are used to refer to the same thing, their
referents are identical. Well yes, of course.
No, what I'm saying is that each
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Suno Ano suno@sunoano.org wrote:
John I would also add the common use of the term distribution to
John that glossary as well.
Yes, true that, at http://python.org/download/ we have *distributions*
to download.
I figure the definition for *Installer*
Hi Glyph,
It sure would be nice if we could use a made-up word like eggs to refer
to these things. Too bad that's taken too :-\.
Yes.
eggs is the best name anybody could hope for to describe a package. It
already has general acceptance to a large degree amongst users (despite
it's faults).
Hi Martin,
From PEP-345,
Requires-Dist: foo (1,!=1.3); platform.machine == 'i386'
I'd like to point to the following quote from http://www.apple.com/intel/
Now every new Mac ships with an Intel processor. Experience delightful
responsiveness from the smallest Mac mini to the most beefed-up
In article
3476.218.214.45.58.1263173741.squir...@syd-srv02.ezyreg.com,
David Lyon david.l...@preisshare.net wrote:
From PEP-345,
Requires-Dist: foo (1,!=1.3); platform.machine == 'i386'
[...]
So the test would be true for some macs but not all, depending on how old
the mac is. Depending
In article
..
Obviously, some macs have intel processors and some don't. How would a
developer reasonably be expected to know which are which? and what
difference does it make?
..
In practice, this is seldom an issue on OS X as Pythons supplied by
python.org and Apple are supplied as
In article
3734.218.214.45.58.1263179984.squir...@syd-srv02.ezyreg.com,
David Lyon david.l...@preisshare.net wrote:
Ned Deily:
David Lyon:
[...]
Obviously, some macs have intel processors and some don't. How would
a
developer reasonably be expected to know which are which? and what
Ned Deily wrote:
It states in PEP 345 that the OS and CPU for which the binary
distribution was compiled is described in the Supported-Platform field.
It also says that the semantic of that field are not specified by this
PEP.
Well it should be made clear where those semantics are to be
21 matches
Mail list logo
