On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 09:34 -0700, David Borowitz wrote: > So, there are two steps to do here: > 1. Move all the content from bin/* into various modules. > 2. Replace/augment stub scripts with entry points (if we can agree on > a way to fail gracefully, etc.). >
> Independent of our discussion on (2) there's no reason not to start > (1) now. Jelmer, were you planning on doing that? I'd be happy to if > you weren't. That sounds reasonable. I didn't have any immediate plans to work on this, go for it. :-) Cheers, Jelmer > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 15:45, Jelmer Vernooij <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 17:23 -0500, Augie Fackler wrote: > > On May 26, 2010, at 5:20 PM, Jelmer Vernooij wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 14:32 -0700, David Borowitz wrote: > > >> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 13:31, Augie Fackler > <[email protected]> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> On May 26, 2010, at 11:48 AM, David Borowitz > wrote: > > >> > > >> I'm definitely open to the idea of > simplifying and/or > > >> combining dul-daemon > > >> and dul-web. To be honest, it feels a > little messy > > >> every time I have to add > > >> more code to one of those scripts. In my > ideal world, > > >> these wrapper scripts > > >> would contain as little code as possible > (basically > > >> "if __name__ == > > >> '__main__': start_server('http', > sys.argv[1:])"). > > >> > > >> Another possibility that moves in a > slightly different > > >> direction is to use > > >> setuptools's entry points: > > >> > > http://peak.telecommunity.com/DevCenter/setuptools#automatic-script-creation > > >> > > >> > > <http://peak.telecommunity.com/DevCenter/setuptools#automatic-script-creation > > >> >(Tangentially, > > >> the reason I added the logging code to > dul-web was > > >> that I didn't want to put > > >> the WSGI handlers in web.py, since wsgiref > is not part > > >> of the python2.4 > > >> standard library. That said, every > python2.4 system I > > >> have has wsgiref > > >> installed, and I'm sure we could come up > with a > > >> conditional import scheme > > >> that fails gracefully.) > > >> > > >> > > >> I'd be a _huge_ fan of using entry points instead > of > > >> maintaining scripts - manually maintained scripts > are often a > > >> colossal pain when using something like virtualenv > or > > >> buildout. > > >> > > >> > > >> I agree, that's why I suggested it :) > > > > > >> The only downside as far as I can see is that it > introduces a > > >> dependency on setuptools, but pretty much everyone has > setuptools > > >> anyway (don't they?). Maybe it's possible to do something > equivalent > > >> with distutils but I don't know how. > > > FWIW I didn't have setuptools installed until I received a > patch for > > > Dulwich that added support for it to setup.py. > > > > > > Is there any particular benefit in using entry points > rather than > > > using > > > a trivial stub script that does "from dulwich.server > import > > > start_server; start_server(sys.argv[1:])" ? > > > > You don't have a hardcoded shebang line which users may have > to edit. > > Even #!/usr/bin/env python can be wrong (if say, the default > system > > Python is 2.6, but someone is installing against a build of > 2.4 or 2.5 > > to test against a production-like environment). > > Ah, ok. > > As long as this doesn't mean depending on setuptools when we > "import > dulwich" I don't have any objections. We could either add the > trivial > stub if setuptools wasn't available or simply not install the > dulwich > and dul-daemon scripts. > > Cheers, > > Jelmer > >
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dulwich-users Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dulwich-users More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
