Re: [Distutils] Getting dependecies of package from PyPiJSON

On 2017-07-20 21:09:28 -0400 (-0400), John Thorvald Wodder II wrote: > [Sending to the list this time] > > On 2017 Jul 20, at 12:41, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > > So while it might be possible to add some sort of feature > > to inspect wheels at upload and then store the specific

Re: [Distutils] Getting dependecies of package from PyPiJSON

[Sending to the list this time] On 2017 Jul 20, at 12:41, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > So while it might be possible to add some sort of feature > to inspect wheels at upload and then store the specific dependencies > declared therein and report those back via an API method, I

Re: [Distutils] status check on PEP 517

On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 at 03:56 Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 3:22 AM, Paul Moore wrote: > > On 20 July 2017 at 10:46, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > >> To make this concrete: I'm *pretty* sure (?) that at this point all > >> the

Re: [Distutils] Getting dependecies of package from PyPiJSON

On 2017-07-20 11:11:38 -0300 (-0300), Leonardo Rochael Almeida wrote: [...] > A small clarification: Packages can define their own dependencies > dynamically only at *build* time, not at *installation* time. > > The difference is subtle (considering many packages (the ones with only > sdist on

Re: [Distutils] Getting dependecies of package from PyPiJSON

Unfortunately, yes there is no public API for a Python packages’ dependencies available. > On 20. Jul 2017, at 15:43, Krzysiek Płachno wrote: > > None of them sends back required dependencies for package. > Does it mean - this information is not obtainable via JSON

Re: [Distutils] Getting dependecies of package from PyPiJSON

Hi Jeremy, On 20 July 2017 at 10:22, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On 2017-07-20 14:55:53 +0200 (+0200), Krzysiek Płachno wrote: > [...] > > > > Or is it possible to this data in any other way (apart from > > downloading package)? > > Unfortunately, no, not with the current state

Re: [Distutils] Getting dependecies of package from PyPiJSON

On 20 July 2017 at 23:43, Krzysiek Płachno wrote: > None of them sends back required dependencies for package. > Does it mean - this information is not obtainable via JSON Api? Unfortunately not, as dependencies currently aren't generally available in a declarative

Re: [Distutils] Getting dependecies of package from PyPiJSON

Hi Krzysztof, Two options, e.g. for the “graphene” package: - https://pypi.python.org/pypi/graphene/json - https://pypi.org/pypi/graphene/json Best, Jannis > On 20. Jul 2017, at 14:55, Krzysiek Płachno

Re: [Distutils] Getting dependecies of package from PyPiJSON

On 2017-07-20 14:55:53 +0200 (+0200), Krzysiek Płachno wrote: [...] > To make downloaded package working it's needed to install also > dependencies. Is it possible to get dependencies information > directly from PyPiJSON API? (e.g. by adding some request parameter > or header in GET request) > >

Re: [Distutils] Getting dependecies of package from PyPiJSON

None of them sends back required dependencies for package. Does it mean - this information is not obtainable via JSON Api? Best, Krzysztof 2017-07-20 15:04 GMT+02:00 Jannis Gebauer : > Hi Krzysztof, > > Two options, e.g. for the “graphene” package: > > -

Re: [Distutils] status check on PEP 517

On 20 July 2017 at 20:55, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 3:22 AM, Paul Moore wrote: > My impression is that people are going to have to pretty much read > from scratch anyway, because the official version is kind of in a > messy state right

[Distutils] Getting dependecies of package from PyPiJSON

Hi! I'm contributing to XWiki open source project http://www.xwiki.org/. XWiki platform is written in Java and apart from many wonderful features allows for scripting in python on its pages. My current task is to enable installing packages form PyPi repository so that they can be later used in

Re: [Distutils] status check on PEP 517

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 3:22 AM, Paul Moore wrote: > On 20 July 2017 at 10:46, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> To make this concrete: I'm *pretty* sure (?) that at this point all >> the basic elements in my "simplified" rewrite are things that we now >> have

Re: [Distutils] status check on PEP 517

I'm also not going to have much time to keep discussing this over the next few days. On Thu, Jul 20, 2017, at 11:22 AM, Paul Moore wrote: > 2) I'd much rather if we're going for a "stop and take stock" style of > reset, that we base that off what's currently in the official version > of the PEP.

Re: [Distutils] status check on PEP 517

On 20 July 2017 at 19:46, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > Hi all, > > So looking over the big threads from the last week, I *think* I have a > reasonable sense of what different people think about the different > trade-offs here... but I'm not sure. And I'm guessing I'm not the only >

Re: [Distutils] status check on PEP 517

On 20 July 2017 at 10:46, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > To make this concrete: I'm *pretty* sure (?) that at this point all > the basic elements in my "simplified" rewrite are things that we now > have consensus are needed in some form, so maybe we can use that as a > kind of "minimal

[Distutils] status check on PEP 517

Hi all, So looking over the big threads from the last week, I *think* I have a reasonable sense of what different people think about the different trade-offs here... but I'm not sure. And I'm guessing I'm not the only one feeling uncertain here. So in this post I'm not going to argue for