Re: Amend Debian Python Proposal to Include More Python Metadata?

On Friday, January 22, 2016 01:32:45 PM Fred Drake wrote: > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > Currently --record includes the .pyc files which is both unneeded and bad. > > Before this gets added either in setuptools or by us, this needed to be >

Re: Amend Debian Python Proposal to Include More Python Metadata?

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > Currently --record includes the .pyc files which is both unneeded and bad. > Before this gets added either in setuptools or by us, this needed to be fixed. Why is this bad? Isn't the point that the record file

Re: Amend Debian Python Proposal to Include More Python Metadata?

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 1:41 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > For Debian it's bad because we don't ship the .pyc files in the package they > are managed locally by the installed python system. They are also unnecessary > because setuptools/pip/python is smart enough to relate

Re: Amend Debian Python Proposal to Include More Python Metadata?

On Friday, January 22, 2016 01:47:28 PM Fred Drake wrote: > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 1:41 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > For Debian it's bad because we don't ship the .pyc files in the package > > they are managed locally by the installed python system. They are also > >

Re: Amend Debian Python Proposal to Include More Python Metadata?

> On Jan 22, 2016, at 6:02 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > > On Jan 22, 2016, at 05:50 PM, Donald Stufft wrote: > >> Forget that pip can fetch files from PyPI and install them for a moment and >> consider the command ``pip install .``. Fundamentally this is similar to the >>

Re: Amend Debian Python Proposal to Include More Python Metadata?

Hey Donald, thanks for starting this conversation. I for one am super appreciative of all the consideration you give for Debian's little slice of the world. There's a lot to unpack in this thread, and I'm a little under the weather[1], so hopefully this makes sense. Big +1 for recording the

Re: Python Policy: Things to consider for Stretch

On Jan 21, 2016, at 10:47 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: >I've taken a run through the current Python Policy to see where I think it >needs to be updated for Stretch. Thanks Scott for the badly needed update. Some comments, apologies for the lack of good quoting, or if I've read the diff

Re: Amend Debian Python Proposal to Include More Python Metadata?

On Friday, January 22, 2016 05:50:13 PM Donald Stufft wrote: ... > We already have an option like this, the —root option which will just append > a different prefix to all of the installation paths. So essentially instead > of invoking ``python setup.py install —root /tmp/something/`` which is

Re: Amend Debian Python Proposal to Include More Python Metadata?

> On Jan 22, 2016, at 5:30 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > > Hey Donald, thanks for starting this conversation. I for one am super > appreciative of all the consideration you give for Debian's little slice of > the world. > > There's a lot to unpack in this thread, and I'm a

Re: Amend Debian Python Proposal to Include More Python Metadata?

On Jan 22, 2016, at 05:50 PM, Donald Stufft wrote: >Forget that pip can fetch files from PyPI and install them for a moment and >consider the command ``pip install .``. Fundamentally this is similar to the >command ``make install`` right? Please remind me what the long term plan for this is.

Re: Amend Debian Python Proposal to Include More Python Metadata?

On January 22, 2016 6:27:08 PM EST, Donald Stufft wrote: > >> On Jan 22, 2016, at 6:04 PM, Scott Kitterman >wrote: >> >> On Friday, January 22, 2016 05:50:13 PM Donald Stufft wrote: >> ... >>> We already have an option like this, the —root option which

Re: Request to Join

On 21 January 2016 at 07:10, Harlan Lieberman-Berg wrote: > I'd like to request to join this team to help maintain backports of the Let's > Encrypt dependencies, especially python-sphinx. > > I've read and agree to the Python Modules Team Policy. My Alioth username is >

Re: Amend Debian Python Proposal to Include More Python Metadata?

[Paul Tagliamonte, 2016-01-22] > I'm sure if you had a real and honest conversation with Donnald, there'd > be middleground. I've never found him to be the sort to bully or ignore > technical arguments. and why we cannot find a middle ground here? Did I say something bad about Donald? Quite the

Re: Amend Debian Python Proposal to Include More Python Metadata?

> On Jan 22, 2016, at 11:51 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > On Friday, January 22, 2016 10:54:54 AM Donald Stufft wrote: >>> On Jan 22, 2016, at 10:36 AM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: >>> >>> to be honest, I still don't know what you're asking for. What do you

Re: Amend Debian Python Proposal to Include More Python Metadata?

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 05:18:36PM +0100, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > let's make a deal. If you will make sure pip doesn't touch system files > (and others will not crucify me for this) - I will make sure pybuild > uses above line (if setuptools is not detected in setup.py but is listed > in

Re: Amend Debian Python Proposal to Include More Python Metadata?

On Friday, January 22, 2016 10:54:54 AM Donald Stufft wrote: > > On Jan 22, 2016, at 10:36 AM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > > > > to be honest, I still don't know what you're asking for. What do you > > want us to do? Patch 2.7's distutils? > > Essentially, ensure that setuptools

Re: Amend Debian Python Proposal to Include More Python Metadata?

> On Jan 22, 2016, at 11:18 AM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > > let's make a deal. If you will make sure pip doesn't touch system files > (and others will not crucify me for this) - I will make sure pybuild > uses above line (if setuptools is not detected in setup.py but is listed

Re: Amend Debian Python Proposal to Include More Python Metadata?

Hi, [Donald Stufft, 2016-01-21] > I'd like to suggest a change to the Debian Policy around Python packages that > will help enable the world of Python packaging to continue to progress > forward. [...] > I have a series of improvements that I'd like to make to the packaging > toolchain that will

Re: Amend Debian Python Proposal to Include More Python Metadata?

> On Jan 22, 2016, at 10:36 AM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > > to be honest, I still don't know what you're asking for. What do you > want us to do? Patch 2.7's distutils? Essentially, ensure that setuptools not distutils is used in a setup.py. There are generally three kinds of

Re: Amend Debian Python Proposal to Include More Python Metadata?

> let's make a deal. If you will make sure pip doesn't touch system files > (and others will not crucify me for this) - I will make sure pybuild > uses above line (if setuptools is not detected in setup.py but is listed > in Build-Depends). FTR: (after talking about it on IRC) the "deal" was

Re: Amend Debian Python Proposal to Include More Python Metadata?

On Friday, January 22, 2016 12:11:27 PM Donald Stufft wrote: ... > 3) It slipped my mind that you have to pass an additional flag to setuptools > right now to get the full file list (pip passes that flag unconditionally) > however I'm going to poke setuptools to see about getting them to add the >

Re: Amend Debian Python Proposal to Include More Python Metadata?

> On Jan 22, 2016, at 6:04 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > On Friday, January 22, 2016 05:50:13 PM Donald Stufft wrote: > ... >> We already have an option like this, the —root option which will just append >> a different prefix to all of the installation paths. So

Re: Amend Debian Python Proposal to Include More Python Metadata?

> On Jan 22, 2016, at 7:18 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > The Zen of Python says, among other things, "There should be one-- and > preferably only one --obvious way to do it". Build systems seem to me like a > great place to apply that. We have a sliding scale of