Re: [Distutils] Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

On 6 November 2016 at 14:44, Robert Collins wrote: > On 3 November 2016 at 22:10, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > ...> dnf/apt/pacman/chocolatey/whatever and make my wheel work everywhere -- > and >> that this will be an viable alternative to conda. > > As a

Re: [Distutils] Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

On 3 November 2016 at 22:10, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Nov 3, 2016 1:40 AM, "Nick Coghlan" wrote: > And then it segfaults because it turns out that your library named is > not abi compatible with my library named . Or it would have been if you > had the

Re: [Distutils] Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

On 6 November 2016 at 08:13, Ralf Gommers wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 11:36 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> > Such a grant was already awarded earlier this year by way of the >> > Scientific Python Working Group (which is a collaborative funding >> >

Re: [Distutils] Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 11:36 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > > On 4 November 2016 at 03:56, Matthew Brett > wrote: > >> But - it would be a huge help if the PSF could help with

Re: [Distutils] Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

On 6 November 2016 at 00:45, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On 2016-11-05 17:43:48 +1000 (+1000), Nick Coghlan wrote: > [...] >> Putting my work hat back on for a moment, I actually wish more people >> *would* start saying that, as Red Hat actively want people to stop >> running their

Re: [Distutils] Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

On 2016-11-05 17:43:48 +1000 (+1000), Nick Coghlan wrote: [...] > Putting my work hat back on for a moment, I actually wish more people > *would* start saying that, as Red Hat actively want people to stop > running their own applications in the system Python, and start using > Software Collections

Re: [Distutils] Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

On 4 November 2016 at 07:44, Chris Barker wrote: > On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 3:39 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> >> I don't think there's much chance of any of this ever working on >> Windows - conda will rule there, and rightly so. Mac OS X seems likely >> to

Re: [Distutils] Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 11:36 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On 4 November 2016 at 03:56, Matthew Brett wrote: >> But - it would be a huge help if the PSF could help with funding to >> get mingw-w64 working. This is the crucial blocker for progress on >>

Re: [Distutils] Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

Hi, On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 11:36 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On 4 November 2016 at 03:56, Matthew Brett wrote: >> But - it would be a huge help if the PSF could help with funding to >> get mingw-w64 working. This is the crucial blocker for progress on

Re: [Distutils] Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

On 4 November 2016 at 03:56, Matthew Brett wrote: > But - it would be a huge help if the PSF could help with funding to > get mingw-w64 working. This is the crucial blocker for progress on > binary wheels on Windows. Such a grant was already awarded earlier this year by

Re: [Distutils] Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

Final note after a long thread: Just like Nick pointed out in his original post (if I read it right) , the pip vs the conda approach comes down to this: Do you want to a system to manage the whole stack? or do you want a system to manage Python packages? Personally, I think that no matter how

Re: [Distutils] Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Chris Barker wrote: > On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 3:50 AM, Paul Moore wrote: >> Or there's the >> option that's been mentioned before, but never (to my knowledge) >> developed into a complete proposal, for packaging up

Re: [Distutils] Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 3:02 PM, Paul Moore wrote: > It would buy *me* flexibility to use python.org build of Python, or my > own builds. And not to have to wait for conda to release a build of a > new version. you are perfectly free to make your own conda package of python

Re: [Distutils] Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 5:02 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Anaconda has an overwhelming advantage on Windows, in that Continuum > can bear the licensing liabilities enforced by the Intel Fortran > compiler, and we can not. Technically, that's an advantage that a commercial

Re: [Distutils] Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

On 3 November 2016 at 21:48, Chris Barker wrote: > On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 3:50 AM, Paul Moore wrote: > >> >> Even on the "hard" cases like Windows, it may be possible to define a >> standard approach that goes something along the lines of defining a >>

Re: [Distutils] Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Matthew Brett wrote: > But - it would be a huge help if the PSF could help with funding to > get mingw-w64 working. This is the crucial blocker for progress on > binary wheels on Windows. for what it's worth, this is a blocker for

Re: [Distutils] Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 3:50 AM, Paul Moore wrote: > Even on the "hard" cases like Windows, it may be possible to define a > standard approach that goes something along the lines of defining a > standard location that (somehow) gets added to the load path, and > interested

Re: [Distutils] Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 3:39 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > I don't think there's much chance of any of this ever working on > Windows - conda will rule there, and rightly so. Mac OS X seems likely > to go the same way, although there's an outside chance brew may pick > up some of

Re: [Distutils] Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 2:34 AM, Paul Moore wrote: > On 2 November 2016 at 23:08, Chris Barker wrote: > > After all, you can use pip from within a conda environment just fine :-) > > In my experience (some time ago) doing so ended up with the "tangled

Re: [Distutils] Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

Hi, On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 2:29 AM, Paul Moore wrote: > On 3 November 2016 at 00:02, Matthew Brett wrote: >> Anaconda has an overwhelming advantage on Windows, in that Continuum >> can bear the licensing liabilities enforced by the Intel Fortran >>

Re: [Distutils] Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

On 3 November 2016 at 10:39, Nick Coghlan wrote: > It may also be feasible to define an ABI for "linuxconda" that's > broader than the manylinux1 ABI, so folks can publish conda wheels > direct to PyPI, and then pip could define a way for distros to > indicate their ABI is

Re: [Distutils] Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

On 3 November 2016 at 19:10, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Nov 3, 2016 1:40 AM, "Nick Coghlan" wrote: >> The approach Tennessee and Robert Collins came up with (which still >> sounds sensible to me) is that instead of dependencies on particular >> external

Re: [Distutils] Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

On 2 November 2016 at 23:08, Chris Barker wrote: > After all, you can use pip from within a conda environment just fine :-) In my experience (some time ago) doing so ended up with the "tangled mess of multiple systems" you mentioned. Conda can't uninstall something I

Re: [Distutils] Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

On 3 November 2016 at 00:02, Matthew Brett wrote: > Anaconda has an overwhelming advantage on Windows, in that Continuum > can bear the licensing liabilities enforced by the Intel Fortran > compiler, and we can not. We therefore have no license-compatible > Fortran

Re: [Distutils] Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

On Nov 3, 2016 1:40 AM, "Nick Coghlan" wrote: > > On 3 November 2016 at 05:28, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > > On Nov 2, 2016 9:52 AM, "Nick Coghlan" wrote: > >> Tennessee Leeuwenberg started a draft PEP for that first part last > >> year:

Re: [Distutils] Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

On 3 November 2016 at 05:28, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Nov 2, 2016 9:52 AM, "Nick Coghlan" wrote: >> Tennessee Leeuwenberg started a draft PEP for that first part last >> year: https://github.com/pypa/interoperability-peps/pull/30/files >> >> dnf/yum, apt,

Re: [Distutils] Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

On 3 November 2016 at 04:39, Chris Barker wrote: > On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> - you need a system for specifying environmental *constraints* (like >> dynamically linked C libraries and command line applications you >> invoke)

Re: [Distutils] Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

> On Nov 2, 2016, at 7:08 PM, Chris Barker wrote: > > perhaps so -- but it will be a good while! The endorsement of the "official" > community really does keep pip going. And, of course, it works great for a > lot of use-cases. Right, there is some overlap in terms of

Re: [Distutils] Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

Hi, On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Chris Barker wrote: > Hey Matthew, > >> > [1] There seems to be some animosity among pip supporters and conda >> > supports, or at least a perception that there is. >> >> I don't know whether there is animosity, but there is certainly >>

Re: [Distutils] Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

Hey Matthew, > [1] There seems to be some animosity among pip supporters and conda > > supports, or at least a perception that there is. > > I don't know whether there is animosity, but there is certainly > tension. Speaking personally, I care a lot about having the option to > prefer pip.

Re: [Distutils] Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

Hi, On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Donald Stufft wrote: [snip] > [1] There seems to be some animosity among pip supporters and conda > supports, or at least a perception that there is. I’d just like to say that > this isn’t really shared (to my knowledge) by the development

Re: [Distutils] Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

On Nov 2, 2016 9:52 AM, "Nick Coghlan" wrote: > [...] > Aside from already needing a Python runtime, the inability to fully > specify the target environment isn't an inherent design limitation > though, the solution just looks different at a pip level: > > - you need a system

Re: [Distutils] Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Donald Stufft wrote: > Sure. Do whatever you want, I don’t think anyone here thinks you > absolutely must use pip. :) [1] > indeed -- and IIUC, part of the thrust of Nick's post was that different package managers serve different use-cases --

Re: [Distutils] Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > No, as the post was about the fundamental and irreconcilable > differences in capabilities, not the incidental ones that can be > solved if folks choose (or are paid) to put in the necessary design > and development time.

Re: [Distutils] Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

> On Nov 2, 2016, at 2:22 PM, Chris Barker wrote: > > or you may decide to ONLY support conda -- my use case is a big pile of > tangled dependencies (yes, lots o' scientific stuff) that is fairly easy to > manage in conda and freekin' nightmare without it. Sure. Do

Re: [Distutils] Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Donald Stufft wrote: > > On Nov 2, 2016, at 12:49 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > > > > I also mean 2.6 vs 2.7 vs 3.4 vs 3.5 vs 3.6, etc > Of course, but that has nothing to do with the package management system... > There are

Re: [Distutils] Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

On 3 November 2016 at 01:54, Chris Barker wrote: > On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 7:32 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> >> > He mentioned that conda allows you to >> > manage the python run-time itself, which is in deed a nice feature, but >> > getting a python

Re: [Distutils] Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

> On Nov 2, 2016, at 12:49 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > >> >> hmm -- I don't think that's the code-writers job -- it's the deployers job. >> Other than choosing which python *version* I want to use, I can happily >> develop with system python and pip, and then deploy with

Re: [Distutils] Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 7:32 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > > He mentioned that conda allows you to > > manage the python run-time itself, which is in deed a nice feature, but > > getting a python run-time as never been the hard part (maybe on Linux if > you > > want a different

Re: [Distutils] Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

On 2 November 2016 at 03:05, Chris Barker wrote: >> Adding a new Python release or a new platform to the build >> configuration is currently an activity that requires per-project work >> when in theory a build service could just add it automatically based >> on when new

Re: [Distutils] Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

On 2 November 2016 at 03:01, Chris Barker wrote: > Nick missed the key point about conda. He mentioned that conda allows you to > manage the python run-time itself, which is in deed a nice feature, but > getting a python run-time as never been the hard part (maybe on Linux

Re: [Distutils] Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 5:19 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > It isn't that simple, as what you really want to automate is the > *release process*, where you upload an sdist, and the wheels *just > happen* for: > > - the Python versions you want to support (e.g 2.7, 3.4, 3.5) > - the

Re: [Distutils] Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 2:50 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > > I wrote some lines, but I deleted my thoughts about the topic > "Automating wheel creation", since > > I am a afraid it could raise bad mood in this list again. That's not my > goal. > > I currently see 3 main ways that

Re: [Distutils] Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

Hi, On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Thomas Güttler wrote: > > > Am 01.11.2016 um 10:50 schrieb Nick Coghlan: >> >> On 1 November 2016 at 17:30, Thomas Güttler >> wrote: >>> >>> Am 17.09.2016 um 12:29 schrieb Nick Coghlan: Hi

Re: [Distutils] Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

Am 01.11.2016 um 10:50 schrieb Nick Coghlan: On 1 November 2016 at 17:30, Thomas Güttler wrote: Am 17.09.2016 um 12:29 schrieb Nick Coghlan: Hi folks, Prompted by a few posts I read recently about the current state of the Python packaging ecosystem, I figured

Re: [Distutils] Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

On 1 November 2016 at 12:19, Nick Coghlan wrote: > It isn't that simple, as what you really want to automate is the > *release process*, where you upload an sdist, and the wheels *just > happen* for: > > - the Python versions you want to support (e.g 2.7, 3.4, 3.5) > - the

Re: [Distutils] Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

On 1 November 2016 at 09:50, Nick Coghlan wrote: > There's also a 4th variant, which is getting to a point where someone > figures out a pushbutton solution for a build pipeline in a public > PaaS that offers a decent free tier. This, of course, is relatively easy for the

Re: [Distutils] Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

On 1 November 2016 at 17:30, Thomas Güttler wrote: > Am 17.09.2016 um 12:29 schrieb Nick Coghlan: >> Hi folks, >> >> Prompted by a few posts I read recently about the current state of the >> Python packaging ecosystem, I figured it made sense to put together an >>

Re: [Distutils] Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

Am 17.09.2016 um 12:29 schrieb Nick Coghlan: > Hi folks, > > Prompted by a few posts I read recently about the current state of the > Python packaging ecosystem, I figured it made sense to put together an > article summarising my own perspective on the current state of things: >

[Distutils] Current Python packaging status (from my point of view)

Hi folks, Prompted by a few posts I read recently about the current state of the Python packaging ecosystem, I figured it made sense to put together an article summarising my own perspective on the current state of things: