There's another point I was thinking about in PEP 376
What about dropping the 'egg' part in 'PROJECT.egg-info' ? and replace it with
'PROJECT.info'
(and make the 2.7 version compatible with PROJECT.egg-info )
I know it's a minor change, but it seems that a lot of people are
confused with
At 05:23 PM 5/4/2009 +0200, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
There's another point I was thinking about in PEP 376
What about dropping the 'egg' part in 'PROJECT.egg-info' ? and
replace it with
'PROJECT.info'
(and make the 2.7 version compatible with PROJECT.egg-info )
I know it's a minor change,
At 07:34 PM 5/3/2009 +0200, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
2009/5/3 P.J. Eby p...@telecommunity.com:
At 12:03 PM 5/3/2009 +0200, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
The name of each file will have to be normalized: all upper case with
no extensions.
Any opinions ?
I don't see any point to the normalization.
To
2009/5/4 P.J. Eby p...@telecommunity.com:
At 05:23 PM 5/4/2009 +0200, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
There's another point I was thinking about in PEP 376
What about dropping the 'egg' part in 'PROJECT.egg-info' ? and replace it
with
'PROJECT.info'
(and make the 2.7 version compatible with
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 5:48 PM, P.J. Eby p...@telecommunity.com wrote:
I don't see any point to the normalization.
To avoid different naming conventions like:
PKG-INFO, requires.txt, SOURCES.txt
And the problem with that is...?
inconsistency, but right, it makes no sense if any file/dir
On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 05:54:59PM +0200, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
2009/5/4 P.J. Eby p...@telecommunity.com:
At 05:23 PM 5/4/2009 +0200, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
There's another point I was thinking about in PEP 376
What about dropping the 'egg' part in 'PROJECT.egg-info' ? and replace it
with
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 6:12 PM, Floris Bruynooghe
floris.bruynoo...@gmail.com wrote:
But what about the idea ?
How can we be sure that we won't want to change it again in the
future?
well I think it's now or never, since we are defining a standard here
for this directory.
As for
At 05:54 PM 5/4/2009 +0200, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
2009/5/4 P.J. Eby p...@telecommunity.com:
At 05:23 PM 5/4/2009 +0200, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
There's another point I was thinking about in PEP 376
What about dropping the 'egg' part in 'PROJECT.egg-info' ? and replace it
with
'PROJECT.info'
At 06:31 PM 5/4/2009 +0200, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
Ok then, we will have to provide extra documentation to make people
understand that the '.egg-info' directory has absolutely nothing to do
with egg-the-format
but is rather a metadata container.
On the contrary; .egg-info *is* an egg format; see
Tarek Ziadé wrote:
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 6:12 PM, Floris Bruynooghe
floris.bruynoo...@gmail.com wrote:
Ok then, we will have to provide extra documentation to make people
understand that the '.egg-info' directory has absolutely nothing to do
with egg-the-format
but is rather a metadata
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Tarek Ziadé ziade.ta...@gmail.com wrote:
Ok then, we will have to provide extra documentation to make people
understand that the '.egg-info' directory has absolutely nothing to do
with egg-the-format
but is rather a metadata container.
'egg-info' was
2009/5/4 P.J. Eby p...@telecommunity.com:
At 06:31 PM 5/4/2009 +0200, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
Ok then, we will have to provide extra documentation to make people
understand that the '.egg-info' directory has absolutely nothing to do
with egg-the-format
but is rather a metadata container.
On the
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Ian Bicking i...@colorstudy.com wrote:
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Tarek Ziadé ziade.ta...@gmail.com wrote:
Ok then, we will have to provide extra documentation to make people
understand that the '.egg-info' directory has absolutely nothing to do
with
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 7:51 PM, P.J. Eby p...@telecommunity.com wrote:
At 06:01 PM 5/4/2009 +0200, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 5:48 PM, P.J. Eby p...@telecommunity.com wrote:
I don't see any point to the normalization.
To avoid different naming conventions like:
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 7:42 PM, Hanno Schlichting hanno...@hannosch.eu wrote:
Tarek Ziadé wrote:
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 6:12 PM, Floris Bruynooghe
floris.bruynoo...@gmail.com wrote:
Ok then, we will have to provide extra documentation to make people
understand that the '.egg-info' directory
At 12:50 AM 5/5/2009 +0200, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 7:51 PM, P.J. Eby p...@telecommunity.com wrote:
At 06:01 PM 5/4/2009 +0200, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 5:48 PM, P.J. Eby p...@telecommunity.com wrote:
I don't see any point to the normalization.
To
2009/5/3 P.J. Eby p...@telecommunity.com:
At 12:03 PM 5/3/2009 +0200, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
The name of each file will have to be normalized: all upper case with
no extensions.
Any opinions ?
I don't see any point to the normalization. However, being able to install
arbitrary files in
Hi Tarek,
On Tue, 5 May 2009 01:37:34 +0200, Tarek Ziadé ziade.ta...@gmail.com
wrote:
Furtermore, if we provide the ability to fill egg-info with third
party packages registered through
a plugin system, it make sense to prepare it at packaging time to
avoid having to install this third
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 1:47 AM, David Lyon david.l...@preisshare.net wrote:
Hi Tarek,
On Tue, 5 May 2009 01:37:34 +0200, Tarek Ziadé ziade.ta...@gmail.com
wrote:
Furtermore, if we provide the ability to fill egg-info with third
party packages registered through
a plugin system, it make
On Tue, 5 May 2009 01:58:57 +0200, Tarek Ziadé ziade.ta...@gmail.com
wrote:
That is what entry points are providing : the ability to mark a code
locate anywhere in your installation
and to load it when needed in your execution context.
ok - but don't we already have this in site.py ? inside
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 2:00 AM, David Lyon david.l...@preisshare.net wrote:
On Tue, 5 May 2009 01:58:57 +0200, Tarek Ziadé ziade.ta...@gmail.com
wrote:
That is what entry points are providing : the ability to mark a code
locate anywhere in your installation
and to load it when needed in
On Tue, 5 May 2009 02:11:36 +0200, Tarek Ziadé ziade.ta...@gmail.com
wrote:
I am not sure to understand what you are explaining - when the python
interpreter starts up, it doesn't load every installed package
in memory. the loading happens when you do import foo
Correct. I didn't say it
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Tarek Ziadé ziade.ta...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I have reworked the PEP a little bit with people feedback.
It needs more feedback :
http://svn.python.org/projects/peps/trunk/pep-0376.txt
- install/uninstall script
I think the best solution is not to
At 12:03 PM 5/3/2009 +0200, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
The name of each file will have to be normalized: all upper case with
no extensions.
Any opinions ?
I don't see any point to the normalization. However, being able to
install arbitrary files in .egg-info is currently supported by
setuptools,
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 2:11 PM, David Lyon david.l...@preisshare.net wrote:
As far as I can see, it's just so much better to have a
package uninstaller in a seperate gui tool. That can be
installed over an existing installation.
We are planning to propose a backport for previous versions
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 14:23:41 +0200, Tarek Ziadé ziade.ta...@gmail.com
wrote:
We are planning to propose a backport for previous versions
ok
Not neccessary - recursively delete the whole package directory or
.egg file.
No because you can have files installed anywhere
That's true that
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 2:35 PM, David Lyon david.l...@preisshare.net wrote:
No because you can have files installed anywhere
That's true that they can be installed anywhere. But there always
needs to be an entry in a .PTH file along the python path to
specify where the files were installed
David Lyon wrote:
If you have a deinstallation facility, then it must work for new
packages as well as old. Otherwise, imho there's just no point.
It is impossible to uninstall a package if you don't have a recording of
what was installed. Removing every directories is a bad idea, as it may
Hi David,
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 22:24:07 +0900, David Cournapeau
da...@ar.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp wrote:
It is impossible to uninstall a package if you don't have a recording of
what was installed.
Not true.
Removing every directories is a bad idea, as it may
remove files which were not
Hi Tarek,
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 15:50:19 +0200, Tarek Ziadé ziade.ta...@gmail.com
wrote:
But during package installation, this information will be written
into a .PTH file somewhere along the python path...
No, you just have a list of relative paths to installed package there
that's it.
It
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 4:34 PM, David Lyon david.l...@preisshare.net wrote:
Hi Tarek,
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 15:50:19 +0200, Tarek Ziadé ziade.ta...@gmail.com
wrote:
But during package installation, this information will be written
into a .PTH file somewhere along the python path...
No, you
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 16:48:32 +0200, Tarek Ziadé ziade.ta...@gmail.com
wrote:
No, you don't have the exaustive list of the files installed.
My testing indicates that pkg_resources works ok.
--code---
import pkg_resources
ws = pkg_resources.WorkingSet()
for i in ws:
s = str(i)
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 5:08 PM, David Lyon david.l...@preisshare.net wrote:
A typical user just wants to install package x,y and z from
pypi. They want them to go into python and it is as simple
as that. Those packages will probably end up in site-packages
but as likely as not, the user won't
At 10:17 AM 4/30/2009 -0400, David Lyon wrote:
In summary... packages are just directories with an __init__.py
file in them. Sometimes they are zipped into eggs.
You are confusing Python package with Python project. Projects
are zipped into eggs, and may contain zero or more
packages.
34 matches
Mail list logo
