Re: [Distutils] PEP 566 - metadata 1.3 changes

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 8:55 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > The reason for *not* making PEP 566 a major version bump is in case > anyone actually implemented this draft requirement from PEP 426: > "Automated tools consuming metadata SHOULD warn if metadata_version is > greater than

Re: [Distutils] PEP 566 - metadata 1.3 changes

On 17 January 2018 at 02:58, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > Should wheel change to emit 1.3, or should the PEP change to become 2.0? I > know there were great hopes for "metadata 2.0", but given that there are > bazillions of packages out there with a metadata version of 2.0, we're

Re: [Distutils] library development patterns

On 17 January 2018 at 06:33, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On 2018-01-16 19:13:31 + (+), Brett Cannon wrote: >> This is part of what I would want us to come to a consensus on. For >> example, do people just create a venv per Python version they want to >> test/support, do

Re: [Distutils] pipenv use cases

On 17 January 2018 at 05:21, Brett Cannon wrote: > Well, technically we need consensus so we agree that what goes up on > packaging.python.org makes sense; I'm not worried about the whole world. :) > I mean I'm not even after specifically recommended testing practices and > such

Re: [Distutils] library development patterns

On 2018-01-16 19:13:31 + (+), Brett Cannon wrote: > On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 at 11:00 Chris Withers wrote: [...] > > I generally use pip install -e . in a checkout to set up a development > > environment but beyond this I think things branch out a lot: > > > > How do you do

Re: [Distutils] library development patterns

On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 at 11:00 Chris Withers wrote: > Okay, so lets be up front: pipenv is not for libraries or reusable apps, > it's for deployments of re-usable apps or development of single-use > application code. I think that's a great aim and covers *all* the end > use

[Distutils] barriers to Warehouse contribution

I've sent a question to pypa-dev https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/pypa-dev/U6NO55bExbE which can be summarized: what should we fix or set up to make it easier for you to hack on Warehouse, especially with a goal of a Warehouse/packaging sprint at PyCon in May? I'd appreciate discussion on

Re: [Distutils] pipenv use cases

On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 at 10:43 Paul Moore wrote: > On 16 January 2018 at 17:36, Brett Cannon wrote: > > Is there a library developer workflow that's being promoted then > somewhere > > that I'm just not finding? Or does that need to be written for > >

Re: [Distutils] library development patterns

Okay, so lets be up front: pipenv is not for libraries or reusable apps, it's for deployments of re-usable apps or development of single-use application code. I think that's a great aim and covers *all* the end use cases of Python at its extreme. However, library devs, and I'd lump reusable

Re: [Distutils] pipenv use cases

On 16 January 2018 at 17:36, Brett Cannon wrote: > Is there a library developer workflow that's being promoted then somewhere > that I'm just not finding? Or does that need to be written for > packaging.python.org (which I might be willing to write; see below for > motivation)?

Re: [Distutils] PEP 566 - metadata 1.3 changes

5 On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 12:08 PM Alex Grönholm wrote: > Whichever we choose, the metadata version should match the PEP version, > which it currently does not. > > Nathaniel Smith kirjoitti 16.01.2018 klo 18:58: > > On Jan 12, 2018 8:00 AM, "Alex Grönholm"

Re: [Distutils] pipenv use cases

On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 at 02:45 Nick Coghlan wrote: > On 16 January 2018 at 20:22, Paul Moore wrote: > > On 16 January 2018 at 10:03, Nick Coghlan wrote: > >> On 16 January 2018 at 19:47, Paul Moore wrote: > >>> I

Re: [Distutils] Deprecating/Removing OpenID/Google login support for PyPI

On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Matthias Bussonnier < bussonniermatth...@gmail.com> wrote: > > * Very few people actually are using OpenID or Google logins as it is. > In one month we had ~15k logins using the web form, ~5k using basic auth, > and 62 using Google and 7 using OpenID. This is a

Re: [Distutils] PEP 566 - metadata 1.3 changes

Whichever we choose, the metadata version should match the PEP version, which it currently does not. Nathaniel Smith kirjoitti 16.01.2018 klo 18:58: On Jan 12, 2018 8:00 AM, "Alex Grönholm" > wrote: On the same note, wheel

Re: [Distutils] PEP 566 - metadata 1.3 changes

On Jan 12, 2018 8:00 AM, "Alex Grönholm" wrote: On the same note, wheel currently writes "2.0" as its metadata version. Shouldn't this be changed into 1.3 (along with ditching metadata.json)? Should wheel change to emit 1.3, or should the PEP change to become 2.0? I

Re: [Distutils] PEP 566 - metadata 1.3 changes

This is the old text. Describing the distribution === The distribution metadata should include a longer description of the distribution that may run to several paragraphs. Software that deals with metadata should not assume any maximum size for the description. The

[Distutils] (no subject)

Thanks ___ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig

Re: [Distutils] PEP 566 - metadata 1.3 changes

Allow me to prod this topic again. ;-) I'm happy with PEP 566 as it stands. Do we want to specify 'email body is long description' in this PEP? It appears to have at least some real world support, but I'm not familiar enough with the email metadata format to write a proper description of it.

Re: [Distutils] pipenv use cases

On 16 January 2018 at 10:44, Nick Coghlan wrote: > Yes, that's deliberate. We want to target app developers as our > initial audience, since library and framework developers have > different needs (and for folks just starting out with library > development, pipenv + the

Re: [Distutils] pipenv use cases

On 16 January 2018 at 20:22, Paul Moore wrote: > On 16 January 2018 at 10:03, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> On 16 January 2018 at 19:47, Paul Moore wrote: >>> I think that if the pipenv docs had some better guidance on what use >>> cases it

[Distutils] pipenv use cases

On 16 January 2018 at 10:03, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On 16 January 2018 at 19:47, Paul Moore wrote: >> I think that if the pipenv docs had some better guidance on what use >> cases it was intended to cover (and what it wasn't, in relation to the >> broader

Re: [Distutils] pipenv best practices?

On 16 January 2018 at 19:47, Paul Moore wrote: > I think that if the pipenv docs had some better guidance on what use > cases it was intended to cover (and what it wasn't, in relation to the > broader range of pip+virtualenv use cases) that would help people > better

Re: [Distutils] pipenv best practices?

On 16 January 2018 at 08:08, Chris Withers wrote: >> That doesn't fall under pipenv's purview. Think of pipenv as trying to >> make venv + pip easier to work with. Since you don't use pip to express >> dependencies for your library then you shouldn't with pipenv either. Or put

Re: [Distutils] pipenv best practices?

On 16/01/2018 04:24, Nick Coghlan wrote: Anyway, we genuinely don't have a clear answer to this question, so I've posted a meta-issue on the pipenv tracker to decide how we want to handle it: https://github.com/pypa/pipenv/issues/1305 Thanks! Continuing on the deployment theme: I'm used to

Re: [Distutils] pipenv best practices?

On 15/01/2018 19:46, Brett Cannon wrote: But I happen to know the answer to your pipenv questions, Chris, so I'll answer them here. Continuing here then :-) So, with pipenv, what files do we version control for a project? both Pipfile and Pipfile.lock? Yes. great, thanks! How