collection of
best practices, and it is better suited for a wiki because those best practices
do change over time.
Policy is what you MUST do, and the barrier for changing policy is — and needs
to be — higher.
Cheers,
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
on the Python Package Index.”
Maybe packages containing extensions are simple enough to include on this page.
It’s a wiki so, 1) it’s a living document; 2) contributions welcome! :)
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
ve revived, lead by the Fedora
folks. Please do check out the new thread, especially if you have opinions
about what /usr/bin/python should do once Python 2.7 is EOL.
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/linux-sig/2017-August/thread.html
Cheers,
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
x distros and Debian may find itself without
a voice in the matter.
Cheers,
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 11, 2008, at 3:43 AM, Matthias Klose wrote:
Currently Debian's python has /usr/local/lib/python2.x/site-packages
in sys.path allowing for installation of local modules. Barry did
point out that this conflicts with a python install
t about this at a BOF,
over lunch, or over beers. :)
- -Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
iQCVAwUBR9aPNHEjvBPtnXfVAQJCzgP/QaadzyGxnvA6WqT8B3QsouSVvZvsmg9n
LAOnoLYzZOhcLzSUlYiukPcU6DMX8HAA8AaAvwpiyCLmk6IZDGMJxDZH+R8u4+w7
9E4KRdt3yxa5nbcJAMa/fWzjpDTlXSecZBAHw7IAYn
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 11, 2008, at 6:36 PM, Floris Bruynooghe wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 09:45:21AM -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 11, 2008, at 3:43 AM, Matthias Klose wrote:
Currently Debian's pytho
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 26, 2008, at 6:23 AM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
This is Debian policy (which is fine), but I don't think all distros
agree. I'm not a distro guy though. :) Mattias, didn't the Fedora
guys
say the
ing like update-manager could be frozen so that it can
run even if the modules it depends on have been uninstalled or otherwise
broken.
From what I understand, this doesn't solve all the problems in
pycentral/pysupport, but it could solve an important subset of the problems
being exp
Mailman 3 uses buildout, it's easy to set up and works great.
-Barry
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
ython-specific tools like setuptools are not able to
> do that, not unless you bundle specific scripts with your packages.
I've never used waf or cmake, but tools like autoconf and scons are not trivial
systems to use, modify or debug. I don't think that they make life easier f
For most Python libraries and applications, they're YAGNI anyway. If there
are specific problems with Python tools for the majority of straightforward
Python libraries, let's fix those tools. But I think they mostly work, and
where they don't, the distutils-sig is paving the way of the future.
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
by either:
mydata = pkg_resources.resource_string('mypkg.mydata', 'foo.dat')
or
mydata_fileobj = pkg_resources.resource_stream('mypkg.mydata', 'foo.dat')
The module contains a lot of extra stuff that I find is rarely if ever used,
but might make for an interesting read. :
On Feb 14, 2010, at 09:18 AM, Paul Wise wrote:
>Unless they can be convinced to undo that, python-json is clearly at a
Very unlikely that will happen.
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
e actually been burned by? Third party Libraries, standard
libraries? I think in general, this is not a good practice and can make
things more difficult in the long run. But it helps to know specifics.
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
hough is to split the standard
library out of the core CPython repository so that it can be better shared
among the alternative implementations. I don't know whether or how that might
inform such a packaging split, but it's something to keep in mind.
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
}): if root imports one
>with -O, .pyo will be created but never removed.
Isn't compileall used to create the pyc files? I think all pyc and pyo files
should be placed on the system by the time the package is installed.
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Apr 14, 2010, at 07:01 PM, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>Le mercredi 14 avril 2010 à 10:29 -0400, Barry Warsaw a écrit :
>> >I was told that python-support does not support 3.X (see bug #573560).
>>
>> I am hoping that none will be necessary. PEP 3147 is very close
On Apr 14, 2010, at 09:26 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
>[4] almost ready in pycompile, still waiting for
>http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0382/ (and 3147), though
PEPs 382 and 384 are next on my list.
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
ided yet. I'm not sure
how Python 2.7's scheduled release date of 2010-06-26 matches Debian's release
schedule. (Given that lenny was released on 2010-01-30 I'm guessing it will
be a while.)
Before I start working on this though, I'd like to get your opinion as to
whether
t version.
I guess the same kind of systematic test for package compatibility with Python
3 would be useful to run for compatibility with Python 2.7. Does such a thing
exist?
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
>close to Debian's quality and these transitions didn't require that much
>work...
Sorry, I don't really know the history of any of that so I can't comment. But
I would like to know more about your new dh_python, what changes it would
require, etc. Where can I find it, or information about it?
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
urse; I'll double check with python-dev.
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
f I import absolute_import from
>__future__)
Right, thanks for confirming (also confirmed on python-dev).
It won't make it into Python 2.7, so I've updated the PEP to remove the
sentence stating that absolute imports would be enabled. Yay! One less thing
to worry about during 2.6->2
-Xenablecachedir is given. In Python 3.2, it's
always enabled.
We'll see how things go. If Ubuntu 10.10 is going to include multiple
versions of Python 2.x, then I think it makes sense. With one 2.x and one 3.x
it's not quiet as clear.
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
and pyclean[3] are available in public.
>
>[1] http://people.debian.org/~piotr/__path__.tar.gz
>[2] http://people.debian.org/~piotr/pycompile
>[3] http://people.debian.org/~piotr/pyclean
Thanks for the links. I'd like to help in any way I can.
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
So if it makes sense for Ubuntu and doesn't harm Debian, then it would be
acceptable to patch Python in Debian even if it doesn't help much (because
Debian won't have multiple versions of Python 2.x)?
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Apr 21, 2010, at 12:03 AM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
>[Barry Warsaw, 2010-04-20]
>> If 10.10 includes
>> only Python 2.7, then sure, we'll only back port to that version.
>
>why do you want to backport it to 2.X for a single python2.x package?
It would only make s
on Debian and Ubuntu.
>On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 01:52:11PM -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> How much of the transition testing is automated? It would be very
>> interesting
>> for example, to have a test framework that could run any combination of
>> Python
>>
packages, that's fine. Developers would never be forced to
>> adhere to them, but it would be to their advantage to do so.
>
>Sounds good to me :)
Right now, it's just an idea. There are a few existing attempts at this, so
it's worth looking at what exists first.
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
involved, either. What I do see is that it will most likely
>almost impossible to provide security support for Python 2.4 if
>upstream decides to stop providing these (Barry?).
Officially, Python 2.4 is EOL. The last release was 2.4.6 on 2008-12-19 and
it was a source-only release. E
.
I wish I could make it. The location is fairly convenient, but the timing
just doesn't work with my summer plans. :(
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
It's a bit more work to change that behavior but
users of Python 3.1 might be surprised by the difference from upstream (the
same questions apply to any back port to Python 2.x).
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
.
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/FoundationsTeam/Specs/MaverickPythonVersions
Cheers,
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
ot make it to Python 2.7 for
Ubuntu 10.10, none of this work is wasted. We know that we'll all be on
Python 2.7 sooner or later, so at the very least this will get us closer for
Maverick+1, and lays the groundwork for squeeze+1.
Cheers,
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On May 18, 2010, at 10:52 AM, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
>On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 11:38:23AM -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> First, let me thank the DPL Stefano Zacchiroli for coming to UDS-M and
>> representing the Debian community. It was really great meeting and having a
>> ch
completely agree. I've added some emphasis to the previously mentioned wiki
page.
Thanks,
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On May 19, 2010, at 12:42 AM, Sandro Tosi wrote:
>Hi Barry,
>thanks for your interest for Debian too :)
Sure thing! While I don't regularly run Debian I do have the ability to run
quite a few VMs on my main development boxes, so it should be pretty easy for
me to test things.
On May 19, 2010, at 11:00 AM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
>[Barry Warsaw, 2010-05-18]
>> We can also recognize that Ubuntu and Debian may ultimately
>> make different decisions, but they should be one of timing rather than
>> substance. What I mean by that is that we can use
f you
>decide it's ready and we will not want to make further changes).
>If yes, then I'm all for it.
That sounds like a good way to go. If we have success doing it in Debian
experimental first, and are able to sync experimental to Ubuntu (for the
Python stuff), then I'm
d on both Python 2 and Python 3
>interpreters.
+1
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On May 23, 2010, at 03:58 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
>[Barry Warsaw, 2010-05-22]
>> So, how can we make sure that doesn't happen? IOW, how can I begin to
>> experiment with a Python 2.7 transition in a way that will benefit Debian as
>> well?'
>
>Simply avo
ight .so to load.
I don't know. I'm skeptical that PEP 384 is worth the effort, but I'm open to
other opinions.
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
s, where would we put it? Ubuntu
already sync's with Debian, but does it make sense to for example, put changes
that are required in Ubuntu first, into Debian experimental? At least that
way, Debian will gain the benefit of it when they catch up. If experimental
isn't the right place for that, what is? Or is there no place that we can
sync changes from Ubuntu to Debian for things like this?
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
on-support) and you're risking the
>> situation where we will not like your implementation and will rewrite
>> them in incompatible way (and that will mean you will have to rewrite
>> them again),
>
>That's why helper tools should be Python based and crossplatform, like
>the Python itself.
And there should be OOWTDI. :)
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
he fundamentally different
release cycles of upstream Python, Debian, and Ubuntu. Python releases new
versions "when ready" but approximately time-based to every 18 months. Debian
releases strictly "when ready"[1], and Ubuntu releases every 6 months. These
are very difficult d
On May 06, 2010, at 04:47 PM, Lino Mastrodomenico wrote:
>2010/5/5 Barry Warsaw :
>> users of Python 3.1 might be surprised by the difference from upstream
>
>It might be useful mentioning somewhere that the best way to detect if
>the Python implementation used supports PEP 3147
n only gets raised in exceptional
circumstances, and those are not tested, then the app or library may not in
practice see the failure very often.
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On May 28, 2010, at 04:35 PM, Jakub Wilk wrote:
>* Barry Warsaw , 2010-05-28, 10:21:
>>>Jakub Wilk found the problem and prepared a list of packages affected:
>>>http://people.debian.org/~jwilk/tmp/string-exceptions.ddlist
>>>
>>>anyone volunteers to che
On May 28, 2010, at 01:24 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
>[Barry Warsaw, 2010-05-28]
>> What I mean is, let's say we have to change something in a helper tool. We
>> want that change to happen at least also in Debian, if not first in Debian,
>> but because of our diffe
;no colon' % info_item
>bzr-2.1.1/bzrlib/tests/test_hooks.py:"a ChangeBranchTipParams
>object. Hooks should raise "
>
>(The latter is a false positive, of course.)
Nice catch. Filed as LP #586926.
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
quested membership through the respective groups on Alioth.
Thanks,
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On May 29, 2010, at 11:18 PM, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>On 05/28/2010 09:10 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> I realize that I've never formally requested addition to DPMT and PAPT.
>> Since
>> I maintain both upstream Python applications and modules, and since I'm on
&g
On Jun 05, 2010, at 10:43 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
I filed a bug on bzr and it was fixed, though I don't know if it's released
yet or not. It was a corner case anyway so probably not a show stopper.
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Version)
Agreed. This aligns with the decision to separate the python2 and python3
stacks by essentially treating them as different interpreters. Maybe we
should have called Python 3 "Phyton" instead. :)
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
r . I mean, have you
*seen* those haircuts?
Seriously though, make the best decisions for today. Python 2 will be around
for a long time.
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
bably a crappy naming convention.
1) Is this a good idea?
2) Can you suggest a better name?
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
on package foo
installed for all installed Python versions, I think it wouldn't be too
difficult to write a little helper that could map from Python module name to
python-foo and python3-foo binary package names, doing the apt-get install for
you.
Does that sound more reasonable?
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Jun 22, 2010, at 12:13 AM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
>[Barry Warsaw, 2010-06-21]
>> I haven't had time to read this through yet, but I recently posted some
>> information related to Python on Debian and Ubuntu and requested off-list
>> feedback. One of the more inte
thout naming
collisions.
The thread starts here:
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-June/100998.html
Except as it specifically impacts Debian, it's probably best to comment on the
proposal over in python-dev.
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
ouldn't be hardcoded.
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
o make things work the way
>we want.
>
>If there's some consensus for an implicit "all" in Python 3, I won't object.
The question that comes to mind is why Python 2 and Python 3 would have
different rules? If there's a good reason (e.g. it cleans up a backward
compatibility wart), then cool. If not, then consistency between the two
might make a reasonable default.
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
ot;cleans up a wart"). +1
Thanks,
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
setuptools gives you distribute
would be two things to start with. I'm sure there are others.
So: do you think this is a good idea? If so, where should this information
go? I'm not sure Teams/PythonAppsPackagingTeam or Teams/PythonModulesTeam are
really the best place for this.
Sug
On Jul 13, 2010, at 10:43 AM, Asheesh Laroia wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Jul 2010, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>
>> We had a report in upstream Python from a user who was trying to find
>> information about dist-packages. He did a Google search and didn't
>> find any definitive
On Jul 13, 2010, at 11:05 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
>[Barry Warsaw, 2010-07-13]
>> * http://wiki.debian.org/DebianPython
>> * http://wiki.debian.org/Python
>
>I removed some really old pages with "Python" in the URL
Nice!
>What do you think about renaming al
velopers.
Anyway, I think it would be useful to elaborate on this in the Debian Python
wiki, though I won't have time to add this for now.
Cheers,
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
nd success of the above command.
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Jul 22, 2010, at 10:00 AM, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
>
>On Thu, 22 Jul 2010, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> >But assuming that in longer run we agree on how we invoke
>> >unittesting for Python modules we ship[...]
>
>> I propose this be spelled: 'python setup.py
On Jul 15, 2010, at 06:55 PM, Markus Gattol wrote:
> Barry> This means that if you install Python from-source, as many
> Barry> Python developers do through the default cmmi build, and system
> Barry> administrators do achieve Python builds isolated from critical
> Barry&g
oko/toolchain
add-apt-repository ppa:pythoneers/toolchain2.7
add-apt-repository ppa:pythoneers/py27stack4
apt-get update
apt-get upgrade
apt-get install python2.7
Please ping me on irc or email if you have any thoughts on the ftbfs in the
py27stack4 PPA.
Cheers,
-Barry
[1] I think th
Hi Jakub,
Thanks very much for looking at these. I have some dumb questions. :)
On Jul 26, 2010, at 10:54 PM, Jakub Wilk wrote:
>* Barry Warsaw , 2010-07-26, 15:38:
>>https://launchpad.net/~pythoneers/+archive/py27stack4/+packages
>>
>>As you can see there are a fe
promoted for in-development testing and the
latter could be promoted for deployed package testing (i.e. where you wouldn't
have a setup.py).
Probably the best place to continue discussing this is in the TIP mailing
list, except perhaps as it applies specifically to Debian.
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Jul 27, 2010, at 05:56 PM, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
>On Thu, 22 Jul 2010, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> In my copious spare time , I'm working on code, documentation,
>> and infrastructure to make this the preferred way of testing Python
>> modules and applications. You do
and common tasks,
and giving beginners a clear bright path to start their journey on. There
will always be fun things to explore out in the wilderness, but sometimes you
just want the simple path, and beginners can be overwhelmed by the choices.
Experienced developers will always be able to
h does not
>support python2.7. Yay.
Looks like a resync pulled a newer version that blew away my py27 enabled
package. This is depressing :(
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Jul 30, 2010, at 11:16 AM, Nicolas Chauvat wrote:
>On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 11:23:05AM -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> True. I like separating my tests into submodules, and I don't
>> personally like in-docstring doctests, so I'm biased toward those
>> decisions.
&
a better suggestion. :(
-Barry
>On Jul 27, 2010, at 1:37 AM, Clint Byrum wrote:
>
>> So I recently uploaded python-libgearman into the svn repository,
>> but bzed pointed out that it didn't build from the swig bindings,
>> and so really wasn't acceptable to uplo
SyntaxError since 2.6 (at least),
but it now appears that the parser is more strict. It's not that __debug__ is
a reserved word though because assignment to e.g. sys.print gives you a
different SyntaxError.
I don't see a specific item describing this in the Python 2.7 Misc/NEWS file
ately complex bit of Python code ever be completely clean. It
would be difficult to get one configuration that could be used across the
board.
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
ansition as possible.
The recommendations that came out of Debconf look pretty good to me. I
especially like the promotion of unit tests during build time, and would like
to help with this (it's been discussed here before but I've been too busy to
work on it much). Maybe tox[1] can help
trongly about it. If you
can't or don't want to bring it to the attention of python-dev, I will do so
in a neutral way.
I strongly discourage Debian from deviating from upstream here.
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
plan on updating my tools
and wiki pages to coordinate this effort. I'll interact mostly on this
mailing list, but occasionally on ubuntu-devel for Ubuntu specific stuff (if
there is anything). All help folks want to lend to the effort will be greatly
appreciated!
Cheers,
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
on2.7 packages once squeeze is out.
What do you think about merging my changes to make Python 2.7 a supported
version in experimental, either before or after squeeze is released? I guess
once squeeze is out, it should probably go in testing though.
I'd love to get 2.7 supported in debia
On Sep 02, 2010, at 08:43 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
>[Barry Warsaw, 2010-09-02]
>> What do you think about merging my changes to make Python 2.7 a
>> supported version in experimental, either before or after squeeze is
>> released? I guess once squeeze is out, it
Robert Collins has an interesting use case, though I'm not sure about his
proposed solution. This probably touches on upstream and Debian packaging, so
in the spirit of starting a discussion, I forward his pvtmsg here for debate
(with his permission).
-Barry
Begin forwarded message:
Date
do, but that's a
>topic for python-devel mailing list...
It would be, but I'm skeptical. In general, libraries tend to come in
(Python) packages these days and you're generally not going to mix APIs in
files within the same package, unless the package is itself managing multiple
APIs. It might be something that distutils2 can attack, either through its
metadata files or by encoding the API in package directory names.
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
se the system Python both for essential system operations (as Debian,
Ubuntu, and Gentoo among others do), and also for deployment of applications
on those operating systems. I've seen situations in the past that trying to
craft a proper environment for a particular app broke the OS.
>It
On Sep 25, 2010, at 01:22 PM, Paul Wise wrote:
>On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 8:17 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>
>> My guess is that you'd get a lot of push back from folks in
>> python-dev. Won't a change like this have the potential to produce
>> confusing, wrong, or h
n coming to the sprints. They're the free part of the
conference (not counting travel, room and board ;) and always a great way to
spend some face time with other Python hackers on difficult problems.
-Barry
Begin forwarded message:
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 21:35:22 -0400
From: Jesse Noller
ut dh_python2 is the future[*] so we
might as well start getting there.
If any of you are planning on coming to UDS-N next week, I look forward to
meeting you and talking about how we can best make this transition happen.
Eagerly awaiting your comment,
-Barry
[*] though it's odd to say "the future" where Python 2 is concerned. ;)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Oct 21, 2010, at 06:35 AM, Jakub Wilk wrote:
>* Barry Warsaw , 2010-10-20, 19:30:
>>We need to check both build and installation (i.e. for pure Python package
>s)
>>compatibility for 2.7.
>
>What is so special about pure-Python packages?
I mistyped. I meant
On Oct 21, 2010, at 09:15 AM, Luca Falavigna wrote:
>Il 21/10/2010 1.30, Barry Warsaw ha scritto:
>> * Python 2.7 compatibility
>>
>> We need to check both build and installation (i.e. for pure Python packages)
>> compatibility for 2.7.
>
>We should analyze whic
e for coordinating porting activities:
http://wiki.python.org/moin/PortingToPy3k
Right now there is information on porting C code, Python code, and other
helper information.
Please join the effort!
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
dded it to the wiki page.
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
g/mailman/listinfo/python-porting
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Oct 22, 2010, at 07:52 PM, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
>Tell that the Arch people:
>http://www.archlinux.org/news/python-is-now-python-3/
>
>Yep, they switched /usr/bin/python to Python 3.X
I heard that Gentoo has done it too, but I have not verified that.
-Barry
s
asy as adding "--with python2" to the end of the dh line.
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
ake it available for example.
https://code.launchpad.net/~barry/+junk/stupid
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
d write the rules file.
I don't think anything's been actually written yet, but James was (IIRC) going
to set up a forum to discuss it and a code repository somewhere.
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
1 - 100 of 864 matches
Mail list logo
