Re: PDM - Python package manager for Debian

2022-04-03 Thread Stefano Rivera
Hi Dominik (2022.04.03_09:16:14_+) > > I've compared the tarball from GH with the file from PyPi, the sdist on > > PyPi contains even less files than the GH tarball, but also no setup.* > > files. > > Uh, PEP-517 actually allows that... I have never seen that in the wild. It's becoming quit

Re: PDM - Python package manager for Debian

2022-04-03 Thread Dominik George
Hi, > I've compared the tarball from GH with the file from PyPi, the sdist on PyPi > contains even less files than the GH tarball, but also no setup.* files. Uh, PEP-517 actually allows that... I have never seen that in the wild. Cool, so this really means we will ultimately have to package ev

Re: PDM - Python package manager for Debian

2022-04-03 Thread Carsten Schoenert
Hi Nick, Am 03.04.22 um 09:58 schrieb Dominik George: Hi Carsten, Or is there a way to get such packages build without a need for PDM to be around? This should really not matter at all when packaging for Debian. The source tarball should include a setup.cfg or setup.py file (i.e. be a regul

Re: PDM - Python package manager for Debian

2022-04-03 Thread Dominik George
Hi Carsten, > Or is there a way to get such packages build without a need for PDM to be > around? This should really not matter at all when packaging for Debian. The source tarball should include a setup.cfg or setup.py file (i.e. be a regular Python sdist), and if not developing on the packag

PDM - Python package manager for Debian

2022-04-03 Thread Carsten Schoenert
Hi, while working further on doing packaging on NetBox I've started trying to package more upcoming new dependencies. Namely I was looking into mkdocstrings [1], which is a new dep for the next minor version of NetBox (in order to build the documentation). mkdocstrings comes (of course) wit