Re: [Distutils] should setuptools be an implicit dependency of every egg?
Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jim Fulton wrote:
These downsides are, in practice, pretty minor. My main objection is
that I don't like encouraging people to be sloppy about
dependencies. The counter argument, of course, is that the standard
library is an implicit dependency and we are behaving as if
setuptools is part of the standard library.
Perhaps we need a lint-like utility ('candle.py', perhaps :) which
examines a given egg, looking for issues such as imports from packages
which are not in a path synthesized from the egg's dependencies?
That'd be useful. It'd be especially useful if it were integrated into
setuptools, as that way it's a bit more likely people will actually use it.
Regards,
Martijn
___
Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
Re: [Distutils] should setuptools be an implicit dependency of every egg?
On Sep 19, 2006, at 8:11 AM, Jim Fulton wrote: ... Note that the scripts generated by zc.buildout don't use pkg_resources to determine the eggs to be loaded at run time. It's also worth noting that the eggs documentation, http:// peak.telecommunity.com/DevCenter/PythonEggs, explicitly advertises that setuptools is not needed to use eggs: If you have a pure-Python .egg file that doesn't use any in- package data files, and you don't mind manually placing it on sys.path or PYTHONPATH, you can use the egg without installing setuptools. I'm going to start with the following compromise in zc.buildout. If an egg uses namespace packages, then I'll treat setuptools as a dependency of the egg even if the egg doesn't list it as a dependency. This will address the common case of eggs using setuptools soley for namespace-package support. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714 http://www.python.org Zope Corporationhttp://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
[Distutils] should setuptools be an implicit dependency of every egg?
Hi there, Normally setuptools is installed system-wide. When you install an egg using easy_install, the egg itself can count on setuptools being available, and use for instance its resource management API and namespace package marking facility. It therefore is unnecessary to users to mark setuptools as a dependency to their eggs in setup.py. Since it's unnecessary, it'll just not be done. This works fine in the case of system-wide installation of setuptools, but when installing eggs locally, such as in Buildout, this can lead to problems. Buildout makes sure that only eggs that are dependencies are importable when starting up a script. An egg that is depending on setuptools implicitly will therefore not have access to setuptools facilities. Telling everybody who makes eggs that use setuptools to please take Buildout into account and include setuptools as an explicit dependency in setup.py seems like a hopeless exercise, as things will just plain work for most egg users and developers, at least until the possible eventuality of Buildout reaching critical mass in the community. What would work for Buildout, and as far as I can see does no harm to everybody else, is to make setuptools an implicit dependency of all eggs. It won't affect anyone else (but for a hopefully tiny performance impact) as setuptools is definitely available on the system when installing the egg through easy_install anyway. So, would this be something that could be added to setuptools? Regards, Martijn ___ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
Re: [Distutils] should setuptools be an implicit dependency of every egg?
On 9/19/06, Martijn Faassen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Normally setuptools is installed system-wide. When you install an egg using easy_install, the egg itself can count on setuptools being available, and use for instance its resource management API and namespace package marking facility. It therefore is unnecessary to users to mark setuptools as a dependency to their eggs in setup.py. Since it's unnecessary, it'll just not be done. .. So, would this be something that could be added to setuptools? +1 -bob ___ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
Re: [Distutils] should setuptools be an implicit dependency of every egg?
On Sep 19, 2006, at 5:43 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote: Hi there, Normally setuptools is installed system-wide. When you install an egg using easy_install, the egg itself can count on setuptools being available, and use for instance its resource management API and namespace package marking facility. It therefore is unnecessary to users to mark setuptools as a dependency to their eggs in setup.py. Since it's unnecessary, it'll just not be done. This works fine in the case of system-wide installation of setuptools, but when installing eggs locally, such as in Buildout, this can lead to problems. Buildout makes sure that only eggs that are dependencies are importable when starting up a script. An egg that is depending on setuptools implicitly will therefore not have access to setuptools facilities. Note that the scripts generated by zc.buildout don't use pkg_resources to determine the eggs to be loaded at run time. The needed eggs are computed at install time and their locations are written into the script. If a script doesn't need setuptools (as determined from egg dependencies), then setuptools is not included in the script path. Unfortunately, many eggs that do import pkg_resurces or setuptools don't bother to list setuptools as a dependency. Telling everybody who makes eggs that use setuptools to please take Buildout into account and include setuptools as an explicit dependency in setup.py seems like a hopeless exercise, as things will just plain work for most egg users and developers, at least until the possible eventuality of Buildout reaching critical mass in the community. I would put this differently. I would ask people to be accurate about their dependencies rather than implicitly assuming that setuptools is around. What would work for Buildout, and as far as I can see does no harm to everybody else, is to make setuptools an implicit dependency of all eggs. It won't affect anyone else (but for a hopefully tiny performance impact) as setuptools is definitely available on the system when installing the egg through easy_install anyway. setuptools is avaialble to buildout, because buildout uses it. The small downsides of making setuptools an implicit dependency of every egg is that: - setuptools will be included in the path of every script even when not needed. This probably has a tiny performance penalty. - setuptools will be downloaded an installed in some cases where it isn't needed. zc.buildout can install scripts for versions of Python other than that used to run zc.buildout. For example, you could run zc.buildout with Python2.4 and asl it to install a Python 2.3 script. We actually do this on occasion when we use buildout to install applications that don't support Python 2.4. These applications generally don't use setuptools, but I might still have to install setuptools just because we consider every egg, implicitly to depending on it. These downsides are, in practice, pretty minor. My main objection is that I don't like encouraging people to be sloppy about dependencies. The counter argument, of course, is that the standard library is an implicit dependency and we are behaving as if setuptools is part of the standard library. So, would this be something that could be added to setuptools? Nothing would have to change in setuptools. If we agree that setuptools is an implicit requirement of every egg, even if the egg never imports anything from the setuptools egg, then I'll modify zc.buildout to include setuptools in the path of every script. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714 http://www.python.org Zope Corporationhttp://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
Re: [Distutils] should setuptools be an implicit dependency of every egg?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jim Fulton wrote:
These downsides are, in practice, pretty minor. My main objection is
that I don't like encouraging people to be sloppy about
dependencies. The counter argument, of course, is that the standard
library is an implicit dependency and we are behaving as if
setuptools is part of the standard library.
Perhaps we need a lint-like utility ('candle.py', perhaps :) which
examines a given egg, looking for issues such as imports from packages
which are not in a path synthesized from the egg's dependencies?
Tres.
- --
===
Tres Seaver +1 202-558-7113 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Palladion Software Excellence by Designhttp://palladion.com
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFFECcW+gerLs4ltQ4RAuLaAKDOUslXaXEkF6Wfm1ZuQNjvCZvtzACfQBPU
MjwS1kpOSpPzJPw6UWyiXaY=
=EMPe
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
